Subject: Re Double exposure (Leifheit)(Cherry)(Kane).
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 105816 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........Another response from EMF-L on this item.....
We seem to have discovered another electronics engineer!!! Good!!
.....guru.....
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Double exposure (Leifheit)(Cherry).....
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:58:57 -0800
From: "robert c. kane"
Reply-To: rkane@tds.net
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3A18D8FE.59AB1C8E@emfguru.com>
Physically it doesn't work quite that way. True, if the field intensity
doubles the energy density increases by a factor of four, but adding a
second radiator/antenna will not cause the field intensity to double.
Of concern for a real situation are:
1) Phase coherence
2) Source frequencies (and each antenna transmits on many
frequencies/channels simultaneously)
3) Mutual coupling of antennas
4) Directivity
5) Orientation
6) Configuration
7) Energy source type (i.e independent current source?)
The question is ill posed because it does not define many necessary
parameters for an adequate solution.
Fundamentally, we might say that since energy is conservative, you won't
get four times the energy at a measurement point by doubling the energy
output at the sources. Better to take the square root of the sum of the
squares approach for both E and H field intensities.
Roy Beavers wrote:
>
> .........Response from Dr. Cherry......
>
> He says the double exposure calculation is off by half.... i.e., It
> SHOULD BE FOUR TIMES!!!..... He's probably right.... Any more argument?
> Clas, Alasdair, Bill, et. al.........guru......
> (Now, consider what happens when the NEXT pair of antennae are added???)
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: Double exposure (Leifheit).
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:22:19 +1300
> From: Neil Cherry
> Reply-To: "neil.cherry@crc.govt.nz"
> Organization: Canterbury Regional Council
> To: "'roy@emfguru.com'"
>
> Dear Roy,
>
> As we know the power density (microwatts/sq cm) is a function of the square
> of the electric field (S = E^2/3.77) where E is the electric field in V/m.
> i.e. E = 10 V/m converts to S = 100/3.77 = 26.5 microwatts/sq cm. I
> understand that the fields are additive. This would mean that rather than
> adding two equal signals of 26.5 microwatts/sq cm (giving 53 microwatts/sq
> cm) instead we add the two E fields, i.e. 10 + 10 = 20 V/m. This then
> becomes S = 400/3.77 = 106.1 microwatts/sq cm (4 times the power density).
>
> Can any of our engineering experts confirm or correct this ?
>
> Regards
> Neil Cherry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Beavers [SMTP:guru@emfguru.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2000 21:08
> To: guru
> Subject: Double exposure (Leifheit).
>
> ............From EMF-L........
>
> Yes, it very likely will double the exposure (approximately)..... P.S.
> There will likely
> be MORE to follow........
>
> That is probably the REAL problem with these towers -- not the first
> lonely antenna
> that is mounted..... But those that follow....... Is that right,
> Sutro Tower????.....guru....
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: cell tower emf
> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:52:33 -0500
> From: "Bruce Leifheit"
> To:
>
> DEAR ROY, SPRINT PCS ERECTED A CELL TOWER IN 1998 LESS THAN 100' FROM
> MY HOME. WE TRIED IN VAIN TO HAVE IT STOPPEDBUT AS I WRITE THIS IT IS
> STILL IN APPEAL. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHED SOME LIGHT IN LAYMENS
> TERMSABOUT POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS THIS COULD HAVE UPON MY WIFE ,KIDS
> AND I.ALSO AS I WRITE THIS THEY AREADDING A SECOND SET OF ANTENNA AND
> ALL NESCESARY HARDWARE TO PROVIDE FOR A SECOND CARRIER. DOES THIS DOUBLE
> MY FAMILIES EXPOSURE AND RISK. ANY INFORMATION YOU COULD PROVIDE WOULD
> BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
> SINCERLY
> BRUCE LEIFHEIT
> 3928 STATE ROUTE 225
> DIAMOND, OHIO 44412
> 330-654-3492
> << File: ATT00004.html >>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com