TEXAS STAR SWEET SIXTEEN FOR SALE
Elvan Wilson Jr.
STRES TEST wrote:
>
> Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses 8
> 2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
> Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
How Much?
RADIOGOD
Has anyone heard what RF fields will do to the human body when you run
this kind of power in a mobile? Scary stuff
RADIOGOD
STRES TEST
MR A MULDER
In article <19970305024...@ladder01.news.aol.com> stre...@aol.com (STRES TEST) writes:
>From: stre...@aol.com (STRES TEST)
>Subject: TEXAS STAR SWEET SIXTEEN FOR SALE
>Date: 5 Mar 1997 02:42:38 GMT
>Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses 8
>2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
>Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
One question; what sort of power sypply do you need to run this thing?
MN Maniac
>Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses 8
>2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
>Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
-Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
CB Radio KADF-6895 since September, 1976
Amateur Radio KF4DDM since September, 1995
Kill the code requirement or kill the hobby. Your choice.
Radio Personality since August, 1983
Scanner Freak since portable radios with "Police Band" were high-tech
Check out my SEVENTIES Web site at http://167.142.101.43/drew/
RADIOGOD
MR A MULDER wrote:
>
> In article <19970305024...@ladder01.news.aol.com> stre...@aol.com (STRES TEST) writes:
> >From: stre...@aol.com (STRES TEST)
> >Subject: TEXAS STAR SWEET SIXTEEN FOR SALE
> >Date: 5 Mar 1997 02:42:38 GMT
>
> >2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
> >Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
>
Anyone who would try to run a linear like this off a power supply is a
fool. You could buy a tube linear (3-500, 8877, etc) for less than what
a power supply would cost to run one of these monsters. My guess is
they are intended only for mobile use, with a couple high output
alternators and a couple large batteries. You would want to be sure
that your voltage stays up around 15 volts, I would suppose, to allow
for significent voltage drop over the power leads to the thing. I have
never used such a large solid state linear, I have used up to about 400
watts. It is pointless (and dangerous to your health) to use a mobile
amp this large. My thesis was based on physiological hazards of
electromagnetic fields in the HF spectrum. Be warned, your health is in
danger if you are around RF fields like this in a mobile.
RADIOGOD
Dogwodwind
I run a TEXAS STAR 667V in a mobile. A DODGE RAM 150 pickup truck to be
specific. It has a stock 90 amp alternator which I had to replace
recently. I thought it was because the truck had 260,000 miles on it, but
it may have been due the linear amp. Health wise, I'm fine expect for the
constant migrane headaches, and constant nose bleeds, along with extreme
sleepyness that I experience while driving. Whats all this talk about RF
dangers on HF bands? DUH??????????
Steve Eklund
cod...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
>
> >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
>
Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
body against RF?
Steve
cod...@aol.com
John Schultz
> In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
>
> >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?!
Why do men climb mountains? Because they are there. Why do men shoot
skip? Target practice.
>And how many alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
1 high output alternator, 1 extra isolated battery, enough 4 guage
welding cable. Total cost approx $200.00. This setup could power twice
that if you wanted to. Why? Because it can ;)
John
RADIOGOD
RADIOGOD
RADIOGOD
affect on the human body, or is your brain already mush.
PS, I hate that term "shoot skip", sort of the trailer trash version of
"working DX".
RADIOGOD
dante
RADIOGOD <radi...@kilowatt.com> wrote in article
<331D00...@kilowatt.com>...
> STRES TEST wrote:
> >
> > Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses 8
> > 2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
> > Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
>
> Has anyone heard what RF fields will do to the human body when you run
> this kind of power in a mobile? Scary stuff
>
> RADIOGOD
>
> It dont do shit
Frank Todd
John Schultz wrote:
>
> > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> >
> > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?!
>
> Why do men climb mountains? Because they are there. Why do men shoot
> skip? Target practice.
>
> >And how many alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
>
> 1 high output alternator, 1 extra isolated battery, enough 4 guage
> welding cable. Total cost approx $200.00. This setup could power twice
> that if you wanted to. Why? Because it can ;)
>
battery to the amp !!!!!!
--Frank
Cbvig2
don't forget to fuse that puppy too....seen more than one car burn up cuz
of that high of an amperage direct connected......
cod...@aol.com
mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
>>
>> >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
>> >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
>>
>
>body against RF?
Just do some Dumpster diving out behind a local Hospital or area Dentist offices - I'm quite sure you'd find some old Lead-Lined suits.
They wouldn't be hard to spot anyways - they'd be visible as a dull greenish glow within the piles of trash...;-)
dante
Frank Todd
Steve Eklund wrote:
>
> cod...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> >
> > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> > >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
> >
> > I've got some jumper cables....;-)
>
> Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
> body against RF?
>
Start to worry past approx. 500Mhz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Regards,
--Frank
RADIOGOD
frequency in such very close proximity to humans is not good.
RADIOGOD
Jeff Huseth
I used to run my 667 in my '86 volkswagen golf. Don't laugh, it had a
stock 90 amp alternator. It was really funny, because on high power,
the tachometer would actually act as sortof a modulation meter! When
I spoke, the tach pointer would jump up and down!
The good old days!
-Jeff
cod...@aol.com
In article <01bc2b77$0d1f7800$8210...@maine.ime.net>, "dante" <dante@ ime. net> writes:
>shut up
WAAAAAAHHHH!!!
RADIOGOD
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5EF316B428C7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Frank Todd wrote:
>
> Steve Eklund wrote:
> >
> > cod...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> > >
> > > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> > > >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
> > >
> > > I've got some jumper cables....;-)
> >
> > Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
> > body against RF?
> >
> > Steve1600 watts at 27 megacycles is not going to affect the human body....
> Start to worry past approx. 500Mhz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
>
> Regards,
>
> --Frank
--------------5EF316B428C7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="hbkrf.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="hbkrf.html"
Content-Base: "file:///C|/downloads/hbkrf.html"
<BASE HREF="file:///C|/downloads/hbkrf.html">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 3.0//EN" "html.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> ARRLWeb: RF Radiation and Electromagnetic Field Safety</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#FF0000">
<H1>RF Radiation and<BR>
Electromagnetic Field Safety</H1>
<FONT SIZE=-1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
Preprinted from the Chapter 9 of the 1997 <I>ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs</I>, Copyright © 1996 American Radio Relay League, Inc. This material may be reproduced for noncommercial use, provided that credit is given.
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<P>
Although Amateur Radio is basically a safe activity, in recent
years there has been considerable discussion and concern about
the possible hazards of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), including
both RF energy and power frequency (50-60 Hz) electromagnetic
fields. Extensive research on this topic is underway in many countries.
This section was prepared by members of the ARRL RF Safety Committee
and coordinated by Dr Robert E. Gold, WBØKIZ. It summarizes what
is now known and offers safety precautions based on the research
to date.
<P>
All life on Earth has adapted to survive in an environment of
weak, natural low-frequency electromagnetic fields (in addition
to the Earth's static geomagnetic field). Natural low-frequency
EM fields come from two main sources: the sun, and thunderstorm
activity. But in the last 100 years, man-made fields at much higher
intensities and with a very different spectral distribution have
altered this natural EM background in ways that are not yet fully
understood. Much more research is needed to assess the biological
effects of EMR.
<P>
Both RF and 60-Hz fields are classified as <I>nonionizing radiation</I>
because the frequency is too low for there to be enough photon
energy to ionize atoms. Still, at sufficiently high power densities,
EMR poses certain health hazards. It has been known since the
early days of radio that RF energy can cause injuries by heating
body tissue. In extreme cases, RF-induced heating can cause blindness,
sterility and other serious health problems. These heat-related
health hazards are called <I>thermal effects.</I> In addition,
there is evidence that magnetic fields may produce biologic effects
at energy levels too low to cause body heating. The proposition
that these athermal effects may produce harmful health consequences
has produced a great deal of research.
<P>
In addition to the ongoing research, much else has been done to
address this issue. For example, the American National Standards
Institute, among others, has recommended voluntary guidelines
to limit human exposure to RF energy. And the ARRL has established
the RF Safety Committee, a committee of concerned medical doctors
and scientists, serving voluntarily to monitor scientific research
in the fields and to recommend safe practices for radio amateurs.
<P>
<B>Thermal Effects of RF Energy</B>
<P>
Body tissues that are subjected to very high levels of RF energy
may suffer serious heat damage. These effects depend upon the
frequency of the energy, the power density of the RF field that
strikes the body, and even on factors such as the polarization
of the wave.
<P>
At frequencies near the body's natural resonant frequency, RF
energy is absorbed more efficiently, and maximum heating occurs.
In adults, this frequency usually is about 35 MHz if the person
is grounded, and about 70 MHz if the person's body is insulated
from the ground. Also, body parts may be resonant; the adult head,
for example is resonant around 400 MHz, while a baby's smaller
head resonates near 700 MHz. Body size thus determines the frequency
at which most RF energy is absorbed. As the frequency is increased
above resonance, less RF heating generally occurs. However, additional
longitudinal resonances occur at about 1 GHz near the body surface.
<P>
Nevertheless, thermal effects of RF energy should not be a major
concern for most radio amateurs because of the relatively low
RF power we normally use and intermittent nature of most amateur
transmissions. Amateurs spend more time listening than transmitting,
and many amateur transmissions such as CW and SSB use low-duty-cycle
modes. (With FM or RTTY, though, the RF is present continuously
at its maximum level during each transmission.) In any event,
it is rare for radio amateurs to be subjected to RF fields strong
enough to produce thermal effects unless they are fairly close
to an energized antenna or unshielded power amplifier. Specific
suggestions for avoiding excessive exposure are offered later.
<P>
<B>Athermal Effects of EMR</B>
<P>
Nonthermal effects of EMR may be of greater concern to most amateurs
because they involve lower level energy fields. Research about
possible health effects resulting from exposure to the lower level
energy fields, the athermal effects, has been of two basic types:
epidemiological research and laboratory research.
<P>
Scientists conduct laboratory research into biological mechanisms
by which EMR may affect animals including humans. Epidemiologists
look at the health patterns of large groups of people using statistical
methods. These epidemiological studies have been inconclusive.
By their basic design, these studies do not demonstrate cause
and effect, nor do they postulate mechanisms of disease. Instead,
epidemiologists look for associations between an environmental
factor and an observed pattern of illness. For example, in the
earliest research on malaria, epidemiologists observed the association
between populations with high prevalence of the disease and the
proximity of mosquito infested swamplands. It was left to the
biological and medical scientists to isolate the organism causing
malaria in the blood of those with the disease and identify the
same organisms in the mosquito population.
<P>
In the case of athermal effects, some studies have identified
a weak association between exposure to EMF at home or at work
and various malignant conditions including leukemia and brain
cancer. However, a larger number of equally well designed and
performed studies have found no association. A risk ratio of between
1.5 and 2.0 has been observed in positive studies (the number
of observed cases of malignancy being 1.5 to 2.0 times the "expected"
number in the population). Epidemiologists generally regard a
risk ratio of 4.0 or greater to be indicative of a strong association
between the cause and effect under study. For example, men who
smoke one pack of cigarettes per day increase their risk for lung
cancer tenfold compared to nonsmokers, and two packs per day increase
the risk to more than 25 times the nonsmokers' risk.
<P>
However, epidemiological research by itself is rarely conclusive.
Epidemiology only identifies health patterns in groups-it does
not ordinarily determine their cause. And there are often confounding
factors: Most of us are exposed to many different environmental
hazards that may affect our health in various ways. Moreover,
not all studies of persons likely to be exposed to high levels
of EMR have yielded the same results.
<P>
There has also been considerable laboratory research about the
biological effects of EMR in recent years. For example, it has
been shown that even fairly low levels of EMR can alter the human
body's circadian rhythms, affect the manner in which cancer-fighting
T lymphocytes function in the immune system, and alter the nature
of the electrical and chemical signals communicated through the
cell membrane and between cells, among other things.
<P>
Much of this research has focused on low-frequency magnetic fields,
or on RF fields that are keyed, pulsed or modulated at a low audio
frequency (often below 100 Hz). Several studies suggested that
humans and animals can adapt to the presence of a steady RF carrier
more readily than to an intermittent, keyed or modulated energy
source. There is some evidence that while EMR may not directly
cause cancer, it may sometimes combine with chemical agents to
promote its growth or inhibit the work of the body's immune system.
<P>
None of the research to date conclusively proves that low-level
EMR causes adverse health effects. Given the fact that there is
a great deal of research ongoing to examine the health consequences
of exposure to EMF, the American Physical Society (a national
group of highly respected scientists) issued a statement in May
1995 based on its review of available data pertaining to the possible
connections of cancer to 60-Hz EMF exposure. This report is exhaustive
and should be reviewed by anyone with a serious interest in the
field. Among its general conclusions were the following:
<P>
1. "The scientific literature and the reports of reviews
by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer
and powerline fields."
<P>
2. "No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic
initiation or promotion of cancer by these extremely weak 60-Hz
fields has been identified."
<P>
3. "While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health
effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is
necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal
relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur."
<P>
The APS study is limited to exposure to 60-Hz EMF. Amateurs will
also be interested in exposure to EMF in the RF range. A 1995
publication entitled <I>Radio Frequency and ELF Electromagnetic
Energies, A Handbook for Health Professionals</I> includes a chapter
called "Biologic Effects of RF Fields." In it the authors
state: "In conclusion, the data do not support the finding
that exposure to RF fields is a causal agent for any type of cancer"
(page 176). Later in the same chapter they write: "Although
the data base has grown substantially over the past decades, much
of the information concerning nonthermal effects is generally
inconclusive, incomplete, and sometimes contradictory. Studies
of human populations have not demonstrated any reliably effected
end point." (page 186).
<P>
Readers may want to follow this topic as further studies are reported.
Amateurs should be aware that exposure to RF and ELF (60 Hz) electromagnetic
fields at all power levels and frequencies may not be completely
safe. Prudent avoidance of any avoidable EMR is always a good
idea. However, an Amateur Radio operator should not be fearful
of using his equipment. If any risk does exist, it will almost
surely fall well down on the list of causes that may be harmful
to your health (on the other end of the list from your automobile).
<P>
<B>Safe Exposure Levels</B>
<P>
How much EM energy is safe? Scientists have devoted a great deal
of effort to deciding upon safe RF-exposure limits. This is a
very complex problem, involving difficult public health and economic
considerations. The recommended safe levels have been revised
downward several times in recent years-and not all scientific
bodies agree on this question even today. A new Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) guideline for recommended EM
exposure limits went into effect in 1991 (see <A HREF="#refs">references</A>). It
replaced a 1982 American National Standards Institute guideline
that permitted somewhat higher exposure levels. ANSI-recommended
exposure limits before 1982 were higher still.
<P>
This new IEEE guideline recommends frequency-dependent and time-dependent
maximum permissible exposure levels. Unlike earlier versions of
the standard, the 1991 standard recommends different RF exposure
limits in<I> controlled environments</I> (that is, where energy
levels can be accurately determined and everyone on the premises
is aware of the presence of EM fields) and in <I>uncontrolled
environments</I> (where energy levels are not known or where some
persons present may not be aware of the EM fields).
<P>
The <A HREF="hbkrf.gif">graph</A> depicts the new IEEE standard. It
is necessarily a complex graph because the standards differ not
only for controlled and uncontrolled environments but also for
electric fields (E fields) and magnetic fields (H fields). Basically,
the lowest E-field exposure limits occur at frequencies between
30 and 300 MHz. The lowest H-field exposure levels occur at 100-300
MHz. The ANSI standard sets the maximum E-field limits between
30 and 300 MHz at a power density of 1 mW/cm<SUP>2</SUP> (61.4 V/m) in controlled
environments-but at one-fifth that level (0.2 mW/cm<SUP>2</SUP> or 27.5 V/m)
in uncontrolled environments. The H-field limit drops to 1 mW/cm<SUP>2</SUP>
(0.163 A/m) at 100-300 MHz in controlled environments and 0.2
mW/cm<SUP>2</SUP> (0.0728 A/m) in uncontrolled environments. Higher power
densities are permitted at frequencies below 30 MHz (below 100
MHz for H fields) and above 300 MHz, based on the concept that
the body will not be resonant at those frequencies and will therefore
absorb less energy.
<P>
In general, the IEEE guideline requires averaging the power level
over time periods ranging from 6 to 30 minutes for power-density
calculations, depending on the frequency and other variables.
The ANSI exposure limits for uncontrolled environments are lower
than those for controlled environments, but to compensate for
that the guideline allows exposure levels in those environments
to be averaged over much longer time periods (generally 30 minutes).
This long averaging time means that an intermittently operating
RF source (such as an Amateur Radio transmitter) will show a much
lower power density than a continuous-duty station for a given
power level and antenna configuration.
<P>
Time averaging is based on the concept that the human body can
withstand a greater rate of body heating (and thus, a higher level
of RF energy) for a short time than for a longer period. However,
time averaging may not be appropriate in considerations of nonthermal
effects of RF energy.
<P>
The IEEE guideline excludes any transmitter with an output below
7 W because such low-power transmitters would not be able to produce
significant whole-body heating. (However, recent studies show
that hand-held transceivers often produce power densities in excess
of the IEEE standard within the head.)
<P>
There is disagreement within the scientific community about these
RF exposure guidelines. The IEEE guideline is still intended primarily
to deal with thermal effects, not exposure to energy at lower
levels. A small but significant number of researchers now believe
athermal effects should also be taken into consideration. Several
European countries and localities in the United States have adopted
stricter standards than the recently updated IEEE standard.
<P>
Another national body in the United States, the National Council
for Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), has also adopted
recommended exposure guidelines. NCRP urges a limit of 0.2 mW/cm<SUP>2</SUP>
for nonoccupational exposure in the 30-300 MHz range. The NCRP
guideline differs from IEEE in two notable ways: It takes into
account the effects of modulation on an RF carrier, and it does
not exempt transmitters with outputs below 7 W.
<P>
<B>Cardiac Pacemakers and RF Safety</B>
<P>
It is a widely held belief that cardiac pacemakers may be adversely
affected in their function by exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Amateurs with pacemakers may ask whether their operating might
endanger themselves or visitors to their shacks who have a pacemaker.
Because of this and similar concerns regarding other sources of
electromagnetic fields, pacemaker manufacturers apply design methods
that for the most part shield the pacemaker circuitry from even
relatively high EM field strengths.
<P>
It is recommended that any amateur who has a pacemaker or is being
considered for one discuss this matter with his or her physician.
The physician will probably put the amateur into contact with
the technical representative of the pacemaker manufacturer. These
representatives are generally excellent resources and may have
data from laboratory or "in the field" studies with
pacemaker units of the type the amateur needs to know about.
<P>
One study examined the function of a modern (dual chamber) pacemaker
in and around an Amateur Radio station. The pacemaker generator
has circuits that receive and process electrical signals produced
by the heart and also generate electrical signals that stimulate
(pace) the heart. In one series of experiments the pacemaker was
connected to a heart simulator. The system was placed on top of
the cabinet of a 1-kW HF linear amplifier during SSB and CW operation.
In addition, the system was placed in close proximity to several
1 to 5-W 2-meter hand-held transceivers. The test pacemaker connected
to the heart simulator was also placed on the ground 9 meters
below and 5 meters in front of a three-element Yagi HF antenna.
No interference with pacemaker function was observed in this experimental
system.
<P>
Although the possibility of interference cannot be entirely ruled
out by these few observations, these tests represent more severe
exposure to EM fields than would ordinarily be encountered by
an amateur with an average amount of common sense. Of course prudence
dictates that amateurs with pacemakers using hand-held VHF transceivers
keep the antenna as far from the site of the implanted pacemaker
generator as possible and use the lowest transmitter output required
for adequate communication. For high power HF transmission, the
antenna should be as far from the operating position as possible
and all equipment should be properly grounded.
<P>
<B>Low-Frequency Fields</B>
<P>
Recently, much concern about EMR has focused on low-frequency
energy rather than RF. Amateur Radio equipment can be a significant
source of low-frequency magnetic fields, although there are many
other sources of this kind of energy in the typical home. Magnetic
fields can be measured relatively accurately with inexpensive
60-Hz dosimeters that are made by several manufacturers.
<P>
<A HREF="#table1">Table 9.1</A> shows typical magnetic field intensities of Amateur
Radio equipment and various household items. Because these fields
dissipate rapidly with distance, "prudent avoidance"
would mean staying perhaps 12 to 18 inches away from most Amateur
Radio equipment (and 24 inches from power supplies with 1-kW RF
amplifiers) whenever the ac power is turned on. The old custom
of leaning over a linear amplifier on a cold winter night to keep
warm may not be the best idea!
<P>
There are currently no non-occupational US standards for exposure
to low-frequency fields. However, some epidemiological evidence
suggests that when the general level of 60-Hz fields exceeds 2
milligauss, there is an increased cancer risk in both domestic
environments and industrial environments. Typical home environments
(not close to appliances or power lines) are in the range of 0.1-0.5
milligauss.
<P>
<B>Determining RF Power Density</B>
<P>
Unfortunately, determining the power density of the RF fields
generated by an amateur station is not as simple as measuring
low-frequency magnetic fields. Although sophisticated instruments
can be used to measure RF power densities quite accurately, they
are costly and require frequent recalibration. Most amateurs don't
have access to such equipment, and the inexpensive field-strength
meters that we do have are not suitable for measuring RF power
density. The best we can usually do is to estimate our own RF
power density based on measurements made by others or, given sufficient
computer programming skills, use computer modeling techniques.
<P>
<A HREF="#table2">Table 9.2</A> shows a sampling of measurements made at Amateur
Radio stations by the Federal Communications Commission and the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1990. As this table indicates,
a good antenna well removed from inhabited areas poses no hazard
under any of the various exposure guidelines. However, the FCC/EPA
survey also indicates that amateurs must be careful about using
indoor or attic-mounted antennas, mobile antennas, low directional
arrays or any other antenna that is close to inhabited areas,
especially when moderate to high power is used.
<P>
Ideally, before using any antenna that is in close proximity to
an inhabited area, you should measure the RF power density. If
that is not feasible, the next best option is make the installation
as safe as possible by observing the safety suggestions listed
in <A HREF="#table3">Table 9.3</A>.
<P>
It is also possible, of course, to calculate the probable power
density near an antenna using simple equations. However, such
calculations have many pitfalls. For one, most of the situations
in which the power density would be high enough to be of concern
are in the near field-an area roughly bounded by several wavelengths
of the antenna. In the near field, ground interactions and other
variables produce power densities that cannot be determined by
simple arithmetic.
<P>
Computer antenna-modeling programs such as MININEC or other codes
derived from NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) are suitable
for estimating RF magnetic and electric fields around amateur
antenna systems. (See the <I>Handbook</I>'s <B>Propagation</B> chapter for more
information about MININEC.) And yet, these too have limitations.
Ground interactions must be considered in estimating near-field
power densities. Also, computer modeling is not sophisticated
enough to predict "hot spots" in the near field-places
where the field intensity may be far higher than would be expected.
<P>
Intensely elevated but localized fields often can be detected
by professional measuring instruments. These "hot spots"
are often found near wiring in the shack and metal objects such
as antenna masts or equipment cabinets. But even with the best
instrumentation, these measurements may also be misleading in
the near field.
<P>
One need not make precise measurements or model the exact antenna
system, however, to develop some idea of the relative fields around
an antenna. Computer modeling using close approximations of the
geometry and power input of the antenna will generally suffice.
Those who are familiar with MININEC can estimate their power densities
by computer modeling, and those who have access to professional
power-density meters can make useful measurements.
<P>
While our primary concern is ordinarily the intensity of the signal
radiated by an antenna, we should also remember that there are
other potential energy sources to be considered. You can also
be exposed to RF radiation directly from a power amplifier if
it is operated without proper shielding. Transmission lines may
also radiate a significant amount of energy under some conditions.
<P>
<B>Further RF Exposure Suggestions</B>
<P>
Potential exposure situations should be taken seriously. Based
on the FCC/EPA measurements and other data, the "RF awareness"
guidelines of <A HREF="#table3">Table 9.3</A> were developed by the ARRL RF Safety Committee.
A longer version of these guidelines, along with a complete list
of references, appeared in a <I>QST</I> article by Ivan Shulman,
MD, WC2S (see References).
<P>
In addition, <I>QST</I> carries information regarding the latest
developments for RF safety precautions and regulations at the
local and federal levels.
<P>
<A NAME="refs"></A>
<B>RF Safety References </B>
<P>
<I>IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure
to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz</I>,
IEEE Standard C95.1-1991, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, New York, 1992.
<P>
For an unbiased assessment of ELF hazards, read the series in
<I>Science</I>, Vol 249 beginning 9/7/90 (p 1096), continuing
9/21/90 (p 1378), and ending 10/5/90 (p 23). Also see <I>Science</I>,
Vol 258, p 1724 (1992). You can find <I>Science</I> in any large
library.
<P>
An excellent and timely document is available on the Internet
by an anonymous FTP from: <B>rtfm.mit.edu</B>, <B>/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/powerlines-cancer-faq/part1</B>
and <B>part2</B>.
<P>
The Environmental Protection Agency publishes a free consumer-level
booklet entitled, "EMF in Your Environment," document
402-R-92-008, dated December 1992. Look for the nearest office
of the EPA in your phone book.
<P>
W. R. Adey, "Tissue Interactions with Nonionizing Electromagnetic
Fields," <I>Physiology Review</I>, 1981; 61:435-514.
<P>
W. R. Adey, "Cell Membranes: The Electromagnetic Environment
and Cancer Promotion," <I>Neurochemical Research, </I>1988;
13:671-677.
<P>
W. R. Adey, "Electromagnetic Fields, Cell Membrane Amplification,
and Cancer Promotion," in B. W. Wilson, R. G. Stevens, and
L. E. Anderson, <I>Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields:
The Question of Cancer </I>(Columbus, OH: Batelle Press, 1989),
pp 211-249.
<P>
W. R. Adey, "Electromagnetic Fields and the Essence of Living
Systems," Plenary Lecture, 23rd General Assembly, International
Union of Radio Sciences (URSI), Prague, 1990; in J. Bach Andersen,
Ed., <I>Modern Radio Science </I>(Oxford: Oxford Univ Press),
pp 1-36.
<P>
Q. Balzano, O. Garay and K. Siwiak, "The Near Field of Dipole
Antennas, Part I: Theory," <I>IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology (VT) 30</I>, p 161, Nov 1981. Also "Part II; Experimental
Results," same issue, p 175.
<P>
R. F. Cleveland and T. W. Athey, "Specific Absorption Rate
(SAR) in Models of the Human Head Exposed to Hand-Held UHF Portable
Radios," <I>Bioelectromagnetics, </I>1989; 10:173-186.
<P>
R. F. Cleveland, E. D. Mantiply and T. L. West, "Measurements
of Environmental Electromagnetic Fields Created by Amateur Radio
Stations," presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics
Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jun 1991.
<P>
R. L. Davis and S. Milham, "Altered Immune Status in Aluminum
Reduction Plant Workers," <I>American J Industrial Medicine,
</I>1990; 131:763-769.
<P>
F. C. Garland, et al, "Incidence of Leukemia in Occupations
with Potential Electromagnetic Field Exposure in United States
Navy Personnel," <I>American J Epidemiology, </I>1990; 132:293-303.
<P>
A. W. Guy and C. K. Chou, "Thermograph Determination of SAR
in Human Models Exposed to UHF Mobile Antenna Fields," Paper
F-6, Third Annual Conference, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Washington,
DC, Aug 9-12, 1981.
<P>
C. C. Johnson and M. R. Spitz, "Childhood Nervous System
Tumours: An Assessment of Risk Associated with Paternal Occupations
Involving Use, Repair or Manufacture of Electrical and Electronic
Equipment," <I>International J Epidemiology, </I>1989; 18:756-762.
<P>
D. L. Lambdin, "An Investigation of Energy Densities in the
Vicinity of Vehicles with Mobile Communications Equipment and
Near a Hand-Held Walkie Talkie," <I>EPA Report ORP/EAD 79-2,
</I>Mar, 1979.
<P>
D. B. Lyle, P. Schechter, W. R. Adey and R. L. Lundak, "Suppression
of T-Lymphocyte Cytotoxicity Following Exposure to Sinusoidally
Amplitude Modulated Fields," <I>Bioelectromagnetics, </I>1983;
4:281 -292.
<P>
G. M. Matanoski et al, "Cancer Incidence in New York Telephone
Workers," <I>Proc Annual Review, Research on Biological Effects
of 50/60 Hz Fields, </I>U.S.<I> </I>Dept of Energy, Office of
Energy Storage and Distribution, Portland, OR, 1989.
<P>
D. I. McRee, <I>A Technical Review of the Biological Effects of
Non-lonizing Radiation, </I>Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Washington, DC, 1978.
<P>
G. E. Myers, "ELF Hazard Facts" <I>Amateur Radio News
Service</I> <I>Bulletin</I>, Alliance, OH, Apr 1994.
<P>
S. Milham, "Mortality from Leukemia in Workers Exposed to
Electromagnetic Fields,"<I> New England J Medicine, </I>1982;
307:249.
<P>
S. Milham, "Increased Mortality in Amateur Radio Operators
due to Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Malignancies," <I>American
J Epidemiology, </I>1988; 127:50-54.
<P>
W. W. Mumford, "Heat Stress Due to RF Radiation," <I>Proc
IEEE, </I>57, 1969, pp 171-178.
<P>
W. Overbeck, "Electromagnetic Fields and Your Health,"
<I>QST</I>, Apr 1994, pp 56-59.
<P>
S. Preston-Martin et al, "Risk Factors for Gliomas and Meningiomas
in Males in Los Angeles County," <I>Cancer Research, </I>1989;
49:6137-6143.
<P>
D. A. Savitz et al, "Case-Control Study of Childhood Cancer
and Exposure to 60-Hz Magnetic Fields," <I>American J Epidemiology,
</I>1988; 128:21-38.
<P>
D. A. Savitz et al, "Magnetic Field Exposure from Electric
Appliances and Childhood Cancer," <I>American J Epidemiology,
1990; </I>131:763-773.
<P>
I. Shulman, "Is Amateur Radio Hazardous to Our Health?"
<I>QST, </I>Oct 1989, pp 31-34.
<P>
R. J. Spiegel, "The Thermal Response of a Human in the Near-Zone
of a Resonant Thin-Wire Antenna," <I>IEEE Transactions on
Microwave Theory and Technology (MTT) </I>30(2), pp 177-185, Feb
1982.
<P>
B. Springfield and R. Ely, "The Tower Shield," <I>QST</I>,
Sep 1976, p 26.
<P>
T. L. Thomas et al, "Brain Tumor Mortality Risk among Men
with Electrical and Electronic Jobs: A Case-Controlled Study,"
<I>J National Cancer Inst, </I>1987; 79:223-237.
<P>
N. Wertheimer and E. Leeper, "Electrical Wiring Configurations
and Childhood Cancer," <I>American J Epidemiology, </I>1979;
109:273-284.
<P>
N. Wertheimer and E. Leeper, "Adult Cancer Related to Electrical
Wires Near the Home," <I>Internat'l J Epidemiology</I>, 1982;
11:345-355.
<P>
"Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields (300 kHz to 100 Ghz)," ANSI C95.1-1991
(New York: IEEE-American National Standards Institute).
<P>
"Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic fields," NCRP Report No. 86 (Bethesda, MD:
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986).
<P>
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Biological
Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields-Background
Paper," OTA-BP-E53 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office), 1989.
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table1">
</A><B>Table 9.1--Typical 60-Hz Magnetic Fields Near Amateur Radio
Equipment and AC-Powered Household Appliances</B>
<P>
Values are in milligauss.
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Item</I> <I>Field</I> <I>Distance</I>
Electric blanket 30-90 Surface
Microwave oven 10-100 Surface
1-10 12"
IBM personal 5-10 Atop monitor
computer
0-1 15" from
screen
Electric drill 500-2000 At handle
Hair dryer 200-2000 At handle
HF transceiver 10-100 Atop cabinet
1-5 15" from
front
1-kW RF amplifier 80-1000 Atop cabinet
1-25 15" from
front
</PRE>
<P>
(Source: measurements made by members of the ARRL RF Safety Committee)
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table2">
</A><B>Table 9.2--Typical RF Field Strengths Near Amateur Radio Antennas</B>
<P>
A sampling of values as measured by the Federal Communications
Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, 1990
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Antenna Type</I> <I>Freq</I> <I>Power</I> <I>E</I> <I>Location</I>
<I>Field</I>
<I>(MHz)</I> <I>(W)</I> <I>(V/m)</I>
Dipole in attic 14.15 100 7-100 In home
Discone in attic 146.5 250 10-27 In home
Half sloper 21.5 1000 50 1 m from base
Dipole at 7-13 ft 7.14 120 8-150 1-2 m from
earth
Vertical 3.8 800 180 0.5 m from base
5-element Yagi at 21.2 1000 10-20 In shack
60 ft
14 12 m from base
3-element Yagi at 28.5 425 8-12 12 m from base
25 ft
Inverted V at 7.23 1400 5-27 Below antenna
22-46 ft
Vertical on roof 14.11 140 6-9 In house
35-100 At antenna
tuner
Whip on auto roof 146.5 100 22-75 2 m from
antenna
15-30 In vehicle
90 Rear seat
5-element Yagi at 50.1 500 37-50 10 m from
20 ft antenna
</PRE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
<A NAME="table3"></A>
<B>Table 9.3--RF Awareness Guidelines</B>
<P>
These guidelines were developed by the ARRL RF Safety Committee,
based on the FCC/EPA measurements of <A HREF="#table2">Table 9.2</A> and other data.
<UL>
<LI>Although antennas on towers (well away from people) pose no
exposure problem, make certain that the RF radiation is confined
to the antennas' radiating elements themselves. Provide a single,
good station ground (earth), and eliminate radiation from transmission
lines. Use good coaxial cable, not open-wire lines or end-fed
antennas that come directly into the transmitter area.
<P>
<LI>No person should ever be near any transmitting antenna while
it is in use. This is especially true for mobile or ground-mounted
vertical antennas. Avoid transmitting with more than 25 W in a
VHF mobile installation unless it is possible to first measure
the RF fields inside the vehicle. At the 1-kW level, both HF and
VHF directional antennas should be at least 35 ft above inhabited
areas. Avoid using indoor and attic-mounted antennas if at all
possible.
<P>
<LI>Don't operate high-power amplifiers with the covers removed,
especially at VHF/UHF.
<P>
<LI>In the UHF/SHF region, never look into the open end of an
activated length of waveguide or point it toward anyone. Never
point a high-gain, narrow-bandwidth antenna (a paraboloid, for
instance) toward people. Use caution in aiming an EME (moonbounce)
array toward the horizon; EME arrays may deliver an effective
radiated power of 250,000 W or more.
<P>
<LI>With hand-held transceivers, keep the antenna away from your
head and use the lowest power possible to maintain communications.
Use a separate microphone and hold the rig as far away from you
as possible.
<P>
<LI>Don't work on antennas that have RF power applied.
<P>
<LI>Don't stand or sit close to a power supply or linear amplifier
when the ac power is turned on. Stay at least 24 inches away from
power transformers, electrical fans and other sources of high-level
60-Hz magnetic fields.
</UL>
<P>
Go to <A HREF="/index.html"><I>ARRLWeb</I>'s opening page</A> ·
<A HREF="/search.phtml"><I>ARRLWeb</I> content search</A>.<BR>
<A HREF="/join.html">Join ARRL or renew your membership via our online form.</A>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<IMG SRC="/arrlicon.gif" ALIGN=left HSPACE=8><I>This page, copyright ©1996 by the American Radio Relay League, Inc, was last updated at 12:00 PM Eastern time on August 7, 1996. Your communications about </I>ARRL products and services<I> are welcome at <A HREF="mailto:h...@arrl.org">h...@arrl.org</A>; about </I>ARRLWeb<I>, at <A HREF="mailto:webm...@arrl.org">webm...@arrl.org</A>.</I>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------5EF316B428C7--
RADIOGOD
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3F62173715E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
RADIOGOD wrote:
>
> Frank Todd wrote:
> >
> > Steve Eklund wrote:
> > >
> > > cod...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> > > >
> > > > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> > > > >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
> > > >
> > > > I've got some jumper cables....;-)
> > >
> > > Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
> > > body against RF?
> > >
> > > Steve1600 watts at 27 megacycles is not going to affect the human body....
> > Start to worry past approx. 500Mhz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Frank
> I think you are wrong my friend. Electromagnetic fields of any
> frequency in such very close proximity to humans is not good.
>
> RADIOGOD
--------------3F62173715E
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
Electromagnetic Field Safety</H1>
<FONT SIZE=-1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<P>
to date.
<P>
effects of EMR.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
of the wave.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
and powerline fields."
<P>
fields has been identified."
<P>
<P>
end point." (page 186).
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
absorb less energy.
<P>
<P>
effects of RF energy.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
system.
<P>
<P>
<B>Low-Frequency Fields</B>
<P>
<P>
<P>
milligauss.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
simple arithmetic.
<P>
<P>
the near field.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
MD, WC2S (see References).
<P>
local and federal levels.
<P>
<A NAME="refs"></A>
<P>
Engineers, New York, 1992.
<P>
library.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
13:671-677.
<P>
pp 211-249.
<P>
pp 1-36.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
</I>1990; 131:763-769.
<P>
<P>
DC, Aug 9-12, 1981.
<P>
<P>
</I>Mar, 1979.
<P>
4:281 -292.
<P>
<P>
Washington, DC, 1978.
<P>
<P>
307:249.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
49:6137-6143.
<P>
</I>1988; 128:21-38.
<P>
1990; </I>131:763-773.
<P>
<P>
1982.
<P>
Sep 1976, p 26.
<P>
<P>
109:273-284.
<P>
11:345-355.
<P>
<P>
<P>
Office), 1989.
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table1">
<P>
Values are in milligauss.
<PRE WIDTH=132>
Electric blanket 30-90 Surface
Microwave oven 10-100 Surface
1-10 12"
computer
0-1 15" from
screen
1-5 15" from
front
1-25 15" from
front
</PRE>
<P>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table2">
<P>
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Field</I>
earth
60 ft
25 ft
22-46 ft
35-100 At antenna
tuner
antenna
15-30 In vehicle
90 Rear seat
20 ft antenna
</PRE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
<A NAME="table3"></A>
<P>
<UL>
<P>
possible.
<P>
especially at VHF/UHF.
<P>
<P>
as possible.
<P>
<P>
60-Hz magnetic fields.
</UL>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------3F62173715E--
RADIOGOD
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------111461742775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------111461742775
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
Electromagnetic Field Safety</H1>
<FONT SIZE=-1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<P>
to date.
<P>
effects of EMR.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
of the wave.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
and powerline fields."
<P>
fields has been identified."
<P>
<P>
end point." (page 186).
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
absorb less energy.
<P>
<P>
effects of RF energy.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
system.
<P>
<P>
<B>Low-Frequency Fields</B>
<P>
<P>
<P>
milligauss.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
simple arithmetic.
<P>
<P>
the near field.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
MD, WC2S (see References).
<P>
local and federal levels.
<P>
<A NAME="refs"></A>
<P>
Engineers, New York, 1992.
<P>
library.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
13:671-677.
<P>
pp 211-249.
<P>
pp 1-36.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
</I>1990; 131:763-769.
<P>
<P>
DC, Aug 9-12, 1981.
<P>
<P>
</I>Mar, 1979.
<P>
4:281 -292.
<P>
<P>
Washington, DC, 1978.
<P>
<P>
307:249.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
49:6137-6143.
<P>
</I>1988; 128:21-38.
<P>
1990; </I>131:763-773.
<P>
<P>
1982.
<P>
Sep 1976, p 26.
<P>
<P>
109:273-284.
<P>
11:345-355.
<P>
<P>
<P>
Office), 1989.
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table1">
<P>
Values are in milligauss.
<PRE WIDTH=132>
Electric blanket 30-90 Surface
Microwave oven 10-100 Surface
1-10 12"
computer
0-1 15" from
screen
1-5 15" from
front
1-25 15" from
front
</PRE>
<P>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table2">
<P>
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Field</I>
earth
60 ft
25 ft
22-46 ft
35-100 At antenna
tuner
antenna
15-30 In vehicle
90 Rear seat
20 ft antenna
</PRE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
<A NAME="table3"></A>
<P>
<UL>
<P>
possible.
<P>
especially at VHF/UHF.
<P>
<P>
as possible.
<P>
<P>
60-Hz magnetic fields.
</UL>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------111461742775--
RADIOGOD
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------73123ABA4223
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
dante wrote:
>
> shut up
>
> cod...@aol.com wrote in article
> <19970307103...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> > >>
> > >> >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> > >> >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
> > >>
> > >> I've got some jumper cables....;-)
> > >
> > >Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
> > >body against RF?
> >
> > Just do some Dumpster diving out behind a local Hospital or area Dentist
> offices - I'm quite sure you'd find some old Lead-Lined suits.
> >
> > They wouldn't be hard to spot anyways - they'd be visible as a dull
> greenish glow within the piles of trash...;-)
> >
--------------73123ABA4223
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
Electromagnetic Field Safety</H1>
<FONT SIZE=-1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<P>
to date.
<P>
effects of EMR.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
of the wave.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
and powerline fields."
<P>
fields has been identified."
<P>
<P>
end point." (page 186).
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
absorb less energy.
<P>
<P>
effects of RF energy.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
system.
<P>
<P>
<B>Low-Frequency Fields</B>
<P>
<P>
<P>
milligauss.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
simple arithmetic.
<P>
<P>
the near field.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
MD, WC2S (see References).
<P>
local and federal levels.
<P>
<A NAME="refs"></A>
<P>
Engineers, New York, 1992.
<P>
library.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
13:671-677.
<P>
pp 211-249.
<P>
pp 1-36.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
</I>1990; 131:763-769.
<P>
<P>
DC, Aug 9-12, 1981.
<P>
<P>
</I>Mar, 1979.
<P>
4:281 -292.
<P>
<P>
Washington, DC, 1978.
<P>
<P>
307:249.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
49:6137-6143.
<P>
</I>1988; 128:21-38.
<P>
1990; </I>131:763-773.
<P>
<P>
1982.
<P>
Sep 1976, p 26.
<P>
<P>
109:273-284.
<P>
11:345-355.
<P>
<P>
<P>
Office), 1989.
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table1">
<P>
Values are in milligauss.
<PRE WIDTH=132>
Electric blanket 30-90 Surface
Microwave oven 10-100 Surface
1-10 12"
computer
0-1 15" from
screen
1-5 15" from
front
1-25 15" from
front
</PRE>
<P>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table2">
<P>
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Field</I>
earth
60 ft
25 ft
22-46 ft
35-100 At antenna
tuner
antenna
15-30 In vehicle
90 Rear seat
20 ft antenna
</PRE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
<A NAME="table3"></A>
<P>
<UL>
<P>
possible.
<P>
especially at VHF/UHF.
<P>
<P>
as possible.
<P>
<P>
60-Hz magnetic fields.
</UL>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------73123ABA4223--
Doug D
Frank Todd <Fra...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Steve Eklund wrote:
>>
>> cod...@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
>> >
>> > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
>> > >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
>> >
>> > I've got some jumper cables....;-)
>>
>> Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
>> body against RF?
>>
>> Steve1600 watts at 27 megacycles is not going to affect the human body....
>Start to worry past approx. 500Mhz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
>
>Regards,
>
>--Frank
Then hold the tip of his antenna in your mouth when he transmits.
Doug
RADIOGOD
MN Maniac wrote:
>
> >I used to run my 667 in my '86 volkswagen golf. Don't laugh, it had a
> >stock 90 amp alternator. It was really funny, because on high power,
> >the tachometer would actually act as sortof a modulation meter! When
> >I spoke, the tach pointer would jump up and down!
>
> Light lit when I keyed up and flickered as I modulated. Kewl! A
> dash-mounted modulation indicator with that "factory-installed look!"
>
> -Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
> CB Radio KADF-6895 since September, 1976
> Amateur Radio KF4DDM since September, 1995
> Kill the code requirement or kill the hobby. Your choice.
> Radio Personality since August, 1983
> Scanner Freak since portable radios with "Police Band" were high-tech
> Check out my SEVENTIES Web site at http://167.142.101.43/drew/
RF stories from RADIOGOD
Used to have a Dodge K-Car with an old Drake TR-4, the engine
would cut out when on 20 meters on voice peaks.
Had a 1986 Honda Civic with a Cobra 25 and 250 watt linear,
the fuel injection would start sputtering, and the Dash light
would come on, would barely run with the linear on.
1991 F-150 with a linear turned on, the tachometer needle
would swing with the modulation.
The ultimate RF story, I was at a stop light, and when I
keyed the mike, (about 250 watts) I popped the drivers airbag
in the car next to me, a late model Subaru!!!
MN Maniac
MN Maniac
>RF stories from RADIOGOD
This is why I prefer pre-1981 vehicles. Radios and amplifiers tend to
have adverse effects on engine computers, fuel injection systems, airbag
deployment, etc.
Zodiac Farmer
RADIOGOD wrote:
>
> Used to have a Dodge K-Car with an old Drake TR-4, the engine
> would cut out when on 20 meters on voice peaks.
>
> Had a 1986 Honda Civic with a Cobra 25 and 250 watt linear,
> the fuel injection would start sputtering, and the Dash light
> would come on, would barely run with the linear on.
>
> 1991 F-150 with a linear turned on, the tachometer needle
> would swing with the modulation.
>
> The ultimate RF story, I was at a stop light, and when I
> keyed the mike, (about 250 watts) I popped the drivers airbag
> in the car next to me, a late model Subaru!!!
I have an 84 Caravan. You ever figure out how to cure the stalling
problem in the K-Car.. i have the same engine.. it stalls as soon as i
go above about 90
Steve Hanis
What are you using for a reference reguarding power, frequency, and the
effect on the human body?
Frank Todd <Fra...@psu.edu> wrote in article <332192...@psu.edu>...
RADIOGOD
Sorry my friend, I did not go to the trouble to try to fix it. Company
car, didn't have it that long.
RG
Steve Eklund
RADIOGOD wrote:
>
> Frank Todd wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > cod...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <19970305160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mnma...@aol.com (MN Maniac) writes:
> > > >
> > > > >WHY would you want or need 1,600 watts in your CAR ?! And how many
> > > > >alternators/batteries would you need to power a monster like this?
> > > >
> > > > I've got some jumper cables....;-)
> > >
> > > Good one! Anybody know where he can buy a suit of armor to protect his
> > > body against RF?
> > >
> > > Steve1600 watts at 27 megacycles is not going to affect the human body....
> > Start to worry past approx. 500Mhz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Frank
> frequency in such very close proximity to humans is not good.
>
> RADIOGOD
I agree! The government says that the most dangerous frequencies to the
human body are in the range of 30 to 300 Mhz, but what does the
government know? Even low power on the frequencies above 500 Mhz are
said to be damaging to the eyeballs, but various parts of the human body
are said to resonate at various frequencies between 30 and 300 Mhz. Your
head makes a nice 1/2 antenna for the frequencies between 200 and 300
Mhz!
Although 27 Mhz does not fall between 30 and 300 Mhz, I would think that
it is close enough especially considering the amount of power. He will
probably do more damage over a period of time that using a 3 watt
cellular telephone at 800+ Mhz. I wonder which he would you feel safer
using?
If you are considering 1600 watts at either frequency, my answer would
be that I would not be close to any antenna at any frequency that is
using that much power.
73 from Steve
Steve Eklund
RADIOGOD wrote:
>
> MN Maniac wrote:
> >
> > >I used to run my 667 in my '86 volkswagen golf. Don't laugh, it had a
> > >stock 90 amp alternator. It was really funny, because on high power,
> > >the tachometer would actually act as sortof a modulation meter! When
> > >I spoke, the tach pointer would jump up and down!
> >
> > The "fasten belts" light in my 1978 Olds 98 Regency would also do this.
> > Light lit when I keyed up and flickered as I modulated. Kewl! A
> > dash-mounted modulation indicator with that "factory-installed look!"
> >
> > CB Radio KADF-6895 since September, 1976
> > Amateur Radio KF4DDM since September, 1995
> > Kill the code requirement or kill the hobby. Your choice.
> > Radio Personality since August, 1983
> > Scanner Freak since portable radios with "Police Band" were high-tech
> > Check out my SEVENTIES Web site at http://167.142.101.43/drew/
>
>
> Used to have a Dodge K-Car with an old Drake TR-4, the engine
> would cut out when on 20 meters on voice peaks.
>
> Had a 1986 Honda Civic with a Cobra 25 and 250 watt linear,
> the fuel injection would start sputtering, and the Dash light
> would come on, would barely run with the linear on.
>
> 1991 F-150 with a linear turned on, the tachometer needle
> would swing with the modulation.
>
> The ultimate RF story, I was at a stop light, and when I
> keyed the mike, (about 250 watts) I popped the drivers airbag
> in the car next to me, a late model Subaru!!!
This is a great arguement for the FCC making laws regarding RF shielding
and filtration even stricter. The manufacturers are trying to get them
to relax the laws even further!
There are some cars that say in the owner's manual that any radio
transmitter over 10 watts could damage the engine's computer. Cars are
mobile and subject to varying exposures of RF when they drive around.
Automobile electronics should have the highest level of RF shielding and
by-passing available. It's a disgrace that cars are being designed that
cannot handle more than a few watts of power!!
73 from Steve
UN93B
My laptop is going to die before I finish reading this one.
Brett
Dogwodwind
You know the touch lamps, the one's that you touch and they come on dim
and then you touch it again and it gets brighter? My TEXAS STAR 667V will
turn my neighbors light on and make it brighter with every key on the mike
and then turn it off. My neighbor has returned the lamp 3 times, thinking
it was defective. I think his house is possessed! DUH!!!
ron h.
i have a Fox 200 DX (2*mrf455's) and it would do the same. Not bad for
a small amp.
Steve
Dogwodwind wrote:
>
> You know the touch lamps, the one's that you touch and they come on dim
> and then you touch it again and it gets brighter? My TEXAS STAR 667V will
> turn my neighbors light on and make it brighter with every key on the mike
> and then turn it off. My neighbor has returned the lamp 3 times, thinking
> it was defective. I think his house is possessed! DUH!!!
I've seen touch lamps do that for years. 100w on any band between 160
and 10m
made mine allternate like that. I can also turn on the next-door
neighbor's
outdoor sensor light with 40W on 2m. :) Some car alarms are also
sensitive to
strong RF fields. >:)
Steve
N8JVN
Lennard Carpenter
Steve (c...@rust.net) wrote:
: Steve
: N8JVN
God this sounds like fun I think I will have to go get myself one of
these things and start to have some fun.
--
// Amiga Corporation!
// The Buttheads Blew IT!
\\ // Len Carpenter
\X/ ( lcar...@freenet.npiec.on.ca )
A Believer in Welland, Ontario Canada
...Everyone has a photographic memory! Some just lack the film!
va3seo
Re the code:Ihave been a ham 4 a year and have full code quallification,you
can't kill the code it separates the men from the c.b.ers. va3seo
NOVA
If i run 22,000 watts in my van, will that be enough to make me
sterile and all my hair fall out? oh well it hasn't happened yet!
73's nova
RADIOGOD
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3D4241986F3F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For your enjoyment. Everyone using high power linears in a mobile READ
AND HEED!!!
--------------3D4241986F3F
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
Electromagnetic Field Safety</H1>
<FONT SIZE=-1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<P>
to date.
<P>
effects of EMR.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
of the wave.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
and powerline fields."
<P>
fields has been identified."
<P>
<P>
end point." (page 186).
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
absorb less energy.
<P>
<P>
effects of RF energy.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
system.
<P>
<P>
<B>Low-Frequency Fields</B>
<P>
<P>
<P>
milligauss.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
simple arithmetic.
<P>
<P>
the near field.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
MD, WC2S (see References).
<P>
local and federal levels.
<P>
<A NAME="refs"></A>
<P>
Engineers, New York, 1992.
<P>
library.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
13:671-677.
<P>
pp 211-249.
<P>
pp 1-36.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
</I>1990; 131:763-769.
<P>
<P>
DC, Aug 9-12, 1981.
<P>
<P>
</I>Mar, 1979.
<P>
4:281 -292.
<P>
<P>
Washington, DC, 1978.
<P>
<P>
307:249.
<P>
<P>
<P>
<P>
49:6137-6143.
<P>
</I>1988; 128:21-38.
<P>
1990; </I>131:763-773.
<P>
<P>
1982.
<P>
Sep 1976, p 26.
<P>
<P>
109:273-284.
<P>
11:345-355.
<P>
<P>
<P>
Office), 1989.
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table1">
<P>
Values are in milligauss.
<PRE WIDTH=132>
Electric blanket 30-90 Surface
Microwave oven 10-100 Surface
1-10 12"
computer
0-1 15" from
screen
1-5 15" from
front
1-25 15" from
front
</PRE>
<P>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<A NAME="table2">
<P>
<PRE WIDTH=132>
<I>Field</I>
earth
60 ft
25 ft
22-46 ft
35-100 At antenna
tuner
antenna
15-30 In vehicle
90 Rear seat
20 ft antenna
</PRE>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
<A NAME="table3"></A>
<P>
<UL>
<P>
possible.
<P>
especially at VHF/UHF.
<P>
<P>
as possible.
<P>
<P>
60-Hz magnetic fields.
</UL>
<P>
<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------3D4241986F3F--
ELK,VE1ELK
"va3seo" <va3...@bconnex.net> wrote:
Who cares....there are more trouble zones on ham bands now than there
ever were on CB,and on 80 mtrs and on and on,do you listen to all the
fighting,that spreads out 1000's of miles,come on get with it.You can
have the code and still be a CB HAM.end of story...and the bands...
To avoid net email spambots from getting my address,please
reply to elke...@atcon.com and thanks
goldeneagle...@gmail.com
> STRES TEST wrote:
> >
> > Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses 8
> > 2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8 volts.
> > Also comes with remote control and mounting brackets. 73's Bill
>
>
Anyone wanting to buy Texas Star amplifiers Contact me I sell them and exforce and others.
Channel Jumper
goldeneagle...@gmail.com;817822 Wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 4, 1997 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Elvan Wilson Jr. wrote:-
> STRES TEST wrote:-
> Well this is the one everyone talks about.The texas star dx1600. uses
> 8
> 2SC2879 transistors. Pulls about 130 amps at full output at 13.8
> volts.
>
>
> How Much?-
> Anyone wanting to buy Texas Star amplifiers Contact me I sell them and
> exforce and others.
Class C amplifiers are used when a person operates CW - Morse Code -
because CW is a narrow band emission.
The only thing the Texas Star is good for is talking on 3 channels at
the same time...
--
Channel Jumper
ddcb...@gmail.com
ddcb...@gmail.com
What type if power supply would you need? Sweet sixteen pulls about it 150 amps true amps with 150 watts of drive. They say you can get away with 200 amp power supply. Okay. Believe me. Get at least 300 amp supply
