5g and the weather

MMitch said:
I agree but are you saying 5G isn't good progress ? I think 5G is a stepping stone for future tech. The way they use mmW is new at consumer level and is bound to open a new world of tech.
We shall see what is born from it in a few years, right now it's way too easy to be narrow minded and say cellphone (and any other devices) won't benefit from it. People said the same thing about Dual Core, 1080P, 4K, VR, DVD, cellphones, etc.
Click to expand...

No. The criticism of the millimeter band for 5g stands. I understand what you are saying, about future applications but I can't think of any application that the combination of short range and line of sight problems doesn't sink.

The problems don't just apply to traditional handset use.

Vehicle to vehicle communications for autonomous vehicles? Do you really want a crucial safety feature interrupted because you lost line of sight?

I'm trying to think of ANY application that loss of line of sight doesn't kill. Long distance transmissions from tower to tower maybe? Unless some bird flies in between, it should be good. Oh, but wait, the range is limited to ~200 yards.

No, 5g is a marginal ~25% improvement over LTE Advanced. All other claims are just plain fraudulent. There is no way engineers in the field haven't known this from day one. It isn't rocket science.

I can't wait for the day of reckoning and the fallout from this one. Heads will roll. Enron will look like small potatoes. This is massive industry-wide fraud, causing a trillion dollar worldwide race to marginal improvement.
 
Last edited:
$trapped said:
You have to eventually trust someone when it comes to this type of information. So care to share who you turn to?
Click to expand...

Since our leaders are mainly sociopaths, it's hard to trust anyone. I've dealt with several different sociopaths in positions of power as I have moved through life, so I do honestly believe that yes, people (especially the sociopaths running the world) do not represent our best interests as humans and are capable of evils most people blow off as impossible and improbable. People are usually only after a few things. Power and money. Our health is of no importance as long as there's profit to be had.

So anyways, there's no way then that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer or damage to us? And how would you know that for sure, and has it actually ever been measured in a way that you can make a conclusion one way or another? Why are there several scientists out there who are worried about the health implications of 5G? Have there been life long studies performed on control groups of millions of people? No, there haven't. There's so many poisons in our environment now, how are we supposed to know what is good and what is bad? Cancer rates are increasing and people are so unhealthy (just look at them). Even with exercise, proper diet, and doing what we've been taught is right in terms of health isn't enough to keep us truly healthy anymore. Everyone has some kind of medical problem, and they're only getting stranger with time. Could it be that we don't really know what we're doing when it comes to health, "innovation", and technology? Does anyone ever think long term?

Dr Rife anyone? https://www.spooky2.com/rife-machine-cured-16-cancer-patients-84-years-ago/

They don't want us to be healthy. If we're sick and slowly dying, it's more profitable that way. Feed us more food containing Roundup (Glyphosate), expose us to all sorts of radiation, make us the guinea pigs for everything, and what do you get? Cancer? Weird medical problems? hmmm, I wonder...
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
No. The criticism of the millimeter band for 5g stands. I understand what you are saying, about future applications but I can't think of any application that the combination of short range and line of sight problems doesn't sink.

The problems don't just apply to traditional handset use.

Vehicle to vehicle communications for autonomous vehicles? Do you really want a crucial safety feature interrupted because you lost line of sight?

I'm trying to think of ANY application that loss of line of sight doesn't kill. Long distance transmissions from tower to tower maybe? Unless some bird flies in between, it should be good. Oh, but wait, the range is limited to ~200 yards.

No, 5g is a marginal ~25% improvement over LTE Advanced. All other claims are just plain fraudulent. There is no way engineers in the field haven't known this from day one. It isn't rocket science.

I can't wait for the day of reckoning and the fallout from this one. Heads will roll. Enron will look like small potatoes. This is massive industry-wide fraud, causing a trillion dollar worldwide race to marginal improvement.
Click to expand...

In urban areas, this is a logical extension of micro/femto cells. The pitch which is always given is the sports stadium or tech conference - with a bazillion people all in tight proximity. Reduced airtime cost for each means a better ability to service clients, and reduced range is actually a benefit (you add more microcells, traffic splits).

It can help in any case where there are a ton of people in one spot. Beyond that, no, high freq isn't a general panacea for wireless problems as you indicate.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
At the frequencies 5G intends to use, we will be limited to about a 200 yard range, and it will require perfect line of sight. Hold even a sheet of paper in between and you lose signal.
Click to expand...
Is this true? I would think mmwave should be able to penetrate paper fairly easily with minimal attenuation, but I'm not sure about that.
 
earnolmartin said:
Since our leaders are mainly sociopaths, it's hard to trust anyone. I've dealt with several different sociopaths in positions of power as I have moved through life, so I do honestly believe that yes, people (especially the sociopaths running the world) do not represent our best interests as humans and are capable of evils most people blow off as impossible and improbable. People are usually only after a few things. Power and money. Our health is of no importance as long as there's profit to be had.

So anyways, there's no way then that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer or damage to us? And how would you know that for sure, and has it actually ever been measured in a way that you can make a conclusion one way or another? Why are there several scientists out there who are worried about the health implications of 5G? Have there been life long studies performed on control groups of millions of people? No, there haven't. There's so many poisons in our environment now, how are we supposed to know what is good and what is bad? Cancer rates are increasing and people are so unhealthy (just look at them). Even with exercise, proper diet, and doing what we've been taught is right in terms of health isn't enough to keep us truly healthy anymore. Everyone has some kind of medical problem, and they're only getting stranger with time. Could it be that we don't really know what we're doing when it comes to health, "innovation", and technology? Does anyone ever think long term?

Dr Rife anyone? https://www.spooky2.com/rife-machine-cured-16-cancer-patients-84-years-ago/

They don't want us to be healthy. If we're sick and slowly dying, it's more profitable that way. Feed us more food containing Roundup (Glyphosate), expose us to all sorts of radiation, make us the guinea pigs for everything, and what do you get? Cancer? Weird medical problems? hmmm, I wonder...
Click to expand...

Trust is difficult to regain once it's been lost. Even worse when we have politicians, pundits, and the avg scatter-brain citizen adding fuel to the trust bonfire. The strength of science is that it removes personal beliefs from the equation. I posit that navigating all the findings of science and making heads or tails of what we as a society do with the results is problematic at best. I would love it if the scientific community could do continuous outreach into the parts of the country that have concerns. Then demonstrate how they have come to the conclusions that most people only hear about once their preferred media outlet and/or local political official mentions it. I can't stand watching reporters, regardless of what side they supposedly represent, botch relaying scientific findings. Overall, I understand the concerns you have regarding how quickly things get adopted without further discussion, but we all need to do a better job separating profit motives from quality of life motives. As for cancer rates increasing....two of the confounding factors for that statistic is that more people are 1. living longer than we have historically, which gives our cells more time/chance to become cancerous and 2. more people are getting screened for cancer than ever before, which means more cases will be detected.
 
5g is way way way more dangerous to your flesh than make believe man caused global warming.

I would share exactly how but even if I did your confirmation biases about 5g being heavenly would override all logic and scientific research.
 
tangoseal said:
5g is way way way more dangerous to your flesh than make believe man caused global warming.

I would share exactly how but even if I did your confirmation biases about 5g being heavenly would override all logic and scientific research.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I stopped paying attention after that first sentence.

What other wisdom are you going to empart on us today? Flat Earth? Astrology? Antivax? 9/11 is an inside job? Moon landing was faked?

Denying climate change in 2019 instantly puts you in the "this person has nothing to add, they clearly don't believe in a fact based approach" category.

Nothing else you say after that can be taken seriously.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sorry, I stopped paying attention after that first sentence.

What other wisdom are you going to empart on us today? Flat Earth? Astrology? Antivax? 9/11 is an inside job? Moon landing was faked?

Denying climate change in 2019 instantly puts you in the "this person has nothing to add, they clearly don't believe in a fact based approach" category.

Nothing else you say after that can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

There goes the typical lefty liberal tolerance hahaha

Global warming is such a damn sham. I can trigger any leftist immediately bringing out the beta Male with nothing but a term "man made global warming is fake news"

But since I believe this is

HARD FORUMS not CNN or the Don Lemon hour

I am not responsible for political bullshit threads that violate the rules.

So trigger all you want, I'm headed back over to the CPU hangout.
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
There goes the typical lefty liberal tolerance hahaha

Global warming is such a damn sham. I can trigger any leftist immediately bringing out the beta Male with nothing but a term "man made global warming is fake news"

But since I believe this is

HARD FORUMS not CNN or the Don Lemon hour

I am not responsible for political bullshit threads that violate the rules.

So trigger all you want, I'm headed back over to the CPU hangout.
Click to expand...


It's so fun to see a human of beta-intellect lash out. Peer reviewed data based research is just about the only thing we can trust in our modern era. Don't knock something just because your beta brain can't handle it :p

But you are right, this is not the place for it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's so fun to see a human of beta-intellect lash out. Peer reviewed data based research is just about the only thing we can trust in our modern era. Don't knock something just because your beta brain can't handle it :p

But you are right, this is not the place for it.
Click to expand...

Totally not the place for it I agree.
 
there is no peer reviewed data based research that supports the man made climate change theory, the 97% agree thing is a hoax.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Why are we even discussing climate change in a 5G thread?
Click to expand...
no idea but you've been on it for a while now. I also figured that you have been around long enough and have lived through enough of the climate hoaxes over the last 40 years to know better than to believe that 97% agree crap.
 
pendragon1 said:
no idea but you've been on it for a while now. I also figured that you have been around long enough and have lived through enough of the climate hoaxes over the last 40 years to know better than to believe that 97% agree crap.
Click to expand...

I think I may have replied to something, that took us on this tangent.

I'm not quite sure what hoaxes you are talking about, but this is my very limited game time, so I am off to Far Cry 4.

I don't want to detail this thread any further, but maybe we can follow up via PM?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If anything, the fact that millimeter waves don't have much penetrating power ought to mean they are safer than previous technologies.

Except maybe to the very outer layer of the skin
Click to expand...

To expand on this...

5g MMW and its ability to penetrate(really any EMs ability to penetrate) are also based on its transmission power. Your phone is not going to produce much more than a smattering of mW. 60ish mW is what is being considered for biotransmission of medical devices and is considered by every sane scientist as "completely safe".

Disruption of the signal happens with a sheet of paper. Disruption does not mean the signal stops just that it no longer is capable of being translated by the receiver. MMW will happily pass through a body. Doing so will absolutely curb stomp its power and shape, however.

What does this mean for those concerned about "health effects"? Guys who work around military radar(which can actually hurt you if you are to close) don't get higher rates of cancer. Your little tiny mW emitter in your phone is a laughably insignificant source of EMR. The SUN produces more EMR. Your wifi is not going to hurt you.
Just for sanity comparisions, the sun outputs 50 times what your cellphone can. Don't say "but there are 200 cellphones on the bus I take to work!" either. Those signals degrade in power every INCH they travel. By the time they reach YOU they are so attenuated as to have ZERO effect on your skin.

TLDR: Your cellphone has to become a giant ball of nuclear fusion and fission over 1.496e+11 meters away to have a hope in hell of generating a risk of skin cancer. Even then it would take years of unblocked exposure to have any effect.
 
Nafensoriel said:
Just for sanity comparisions, the sun outputs 50 times what your cellphone can. Don't say "but there are 200 cellphones on the bus I take to work!" either. Those signals degrade in power every INCH they travel. By the time they reach YOU they are so attenuated as to have ZERO effect on your skin.
Click to expand...
Do you mean sun outputs 50 times more power around cell phone frequencies (say 500MHz to 5GHz)?

Curious, do you have source/calculations for that?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Why are we even discussing climate change in a 5G thread?
Click to expand...


Because people would rather freak-out and overreact, rather tha have an actual discussion about the frequencies required for certain weather detection technology.

Standard freak-out methodology is to mention THAT OTHER THING YOU'RE TOO AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT RATIONALLY, and use it as a red herring. So yeah, HOLY SHIT CIMATE CHANG!

Just like they suddenly divert the discussion to bull "studies" about how 5G will harm humans, because discussing frequencies, power and the ability to ionize is hard
 
Last edited:
serpretetsky said:
Do you mean sun outputs 50 times more power around cell phone frequencies (say 500MHz to 5GHz)?

Curious, do you have source/calculations for that?
Click to expand...


No, the sun's spectrum drops off way above 5ghz, or else we couldn't use cell phones here on earth, (because they would get too much interference from the sun to be usable).

But he is correct: the power output by the sun is much more massive in-comparison to your cell phone. I's also ionizing (can actually alter your cell's DNA structures). The sun's frequency range starts at 93 Terahertz, and goes all the way up to 1033 Terahertz. The higher the frequency, the more energetic the radiation, which is why it's IONIZING!

Let me put it this way: your cell phone can't give you a sunburn, or fry ants under a magnifying glass. There's a SERIOUS difference in radiated power. The sun is so powerful it can transmit over 92 million miles to reach our planet AND STILL HAVE PLENTY OF POWER LEFT IN THE TANK, while your cell phone is lucky to transmit ten miles and still get a signal.

One causes skin cancer, is powerful enough to kill bacteria in water (clear containers in the sun), and the other *might* get you a connected phone call from a tower on the other side of your town.
 
Last edited:
Joust said:
Blah blah. Climate change. It's a pretty cool argument. You literally cannot lose no matter what. Climate change proof:
Warming climate
Cooling climate
Too many storms
Not enough storms
Point to models that never, ever reflect experience? That's ok. It's a model. And we should take action because it's modeled to be bad!

Look, believe it, don't believe it - I like clean air and water - right? I also realize that when we are talking global scale, if China and India aren't on board, the rest doesn't matter. Ever wonder why it's so important to be classified as a developing nation for them? Huh.

Am I saying the climate isn't changing? No. I'm saying GTFO of here with that chicken little crap. I was promised in the 90's that we wouldn't have winter within 20 years. Like, seriously with the not making good on promises.
Click to expand...


If you really believed the report you read there won't be winter in 20 years you clearly were reading some fake shit lol. The failed proposition was people calling it global warming, since mankind tends to not want to do research and believe what they hear. People actually still believe that means its all hot no cold lol.

Plus I don't understand how the fuck this thread turned in climate change politics lol.

Here is the real shit about climate change. Humans are selfish most of them in regards to feel responsibility and keeping this planet in good shape, not calling anyone in particular or you. Most tend to think short term, like I am going to be dead anyways so who gives two shits lol.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
If you really believed the report you read there won't be winter in 20 years you clearly were reading some fake shit lol. The failed proposition was people calling it global warming, since mankind tends to not want to do research and believe what they hear. People actually still believe that means its all hot no cold lol.

Plus I don't understand how the fuck this thread turned in climate change politics lol.

Here is the real shit about climate change. Humans are selfish most of them in regards to feel responsibility and keeping this planet in good shape, not calling anyone in particular or you. Most tend to think short term, like I am going to be dead anyways so who gives two shits lol.
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...s7RS3x3nxNBvZy8hg&ampcf=1&cshid=1559173979625

Maybe that link works, dunno. The point is: the alarmist stuff is just baloney. That was the point. The doomsayers are full of it.
 
Joust said:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...s7RS3x3nxNBvZy8hg&ampcf=1&cshid=1559173979625

Maybe that link works, dunno. The point is: the alarmist stuff is just baloney. That was the point. The doomsayers are full of it.
Click to expand...

I think most of the alarmism and doomsaying predictions are as you say, full of it.

However, I do not think the general observations of trends and statistical data are full of it. While I can't way when we've reached a point of no return (global thermodynamics = hard), data does indicate we are going in that direction. So the question is as always, how much do you do, and when.

My thought is if we can steer the ship a little bit now to avoid the iceberg, let's consider it. If it is far off - awesome! But far off isn't another way of saying "does not exist". Let's give a little tug on the wheel now, and avoid either a meltdown or massive tug on the wheel later.

But yeah, wild-eyed hysteria and Portents Of Doom don't serve anyone well. That's the left's version of "there may be terrorists in your closet".
 
PhaseNoise said:
I think most of the alarmism and doomsaying predictions are as you say, full of it.

However, I do not think the general observations of trends and statistical data are full of it. While I can't way when we've reached a point of no return (global thermodynamics = hard), data does indicate we are going in that direction. So the question is as always, how much do you do, and when.

My thought is if we can steer the ship a little bit now to avoid the iceberg, let's consider it. If it is far off - awesome! But far off isn't another way of saying "does not exist". Let's give a little tug on the wheel now, and avoid either a meltdown or massive tug on the wheel later.

But yeah, wild-eyed hysteria and Portents Of Doom don't serve anyone well. That's the left's version of "there may be terrorists in your closet".
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with this position. I do favor prudent stewardship of our resources.
 
serpretetsky said:
Do you mean sun outputs 50 times more power around cell phone frequencies (say 500MHz to 5GHz)?

Curious, do you have source/calculations for that?
Click to expand...
Do em yourself. Suns output on the surface of earth average at about 1k W/m3. Slightly more or less depending on where you are. General distribution is 50 IR, 45 vis, 5 UV.

And this doesn't count Ionizing radiation. Just LIGHT. (Just in case you dont know.. Light, especially sunlight, is EM radiation no different than a radio tower set to the same frequencies).


To expand more on WHY a cell phone transmitter isn't going to harm your DNA its, again, a matter of power.
For EMR to damage DNA it MUST have energy. Your cell phone is measured in milliwatts(mW). A military radar such as TPS-75 is measured in MEGAwatts. Specifically up to 5 MWs though it typically operates at 2.8ish. Standing in a TPS-75s transmission path WILL be hazardous to your health. It can cause BURNS and most certainly has the ENERGY to penetrate cell walls and bombard DNA at close range. Your CELLPHONEs transmitter DOES NOT have this energy level. It is PHYSICALLY incapable of PENETRATING the cell to bombard DNA. Physics just says no.

Oh and just to be a bit scary.. TV antenas make military ones look tame.
 
I don't understand why they are trying to implement 5G when 4G hasn't even been properly and fully implemented yet. I'd like South Korea style 4G first.
 
Nafensoriel said:
Do em yourself. Suns output on the surface of earth average at about 1k W/m3. Slightly more or less depending on where you are. General distribution is 50 IR, 45 vis, 5 UV.

And this doesn't count Ionizing radiation. Just LIGHT. (Just in case you dont know.. Light, especially sunlight, is EM radiation no different than a radio tower set to the same frequencies).


To expand more on WHY a cell phone transmitter isn't going to harm your DNA its, again, a matter of power.
For EMR to damage DNA it MUST have energy. Your cell phone is measured in milliwatts(mW). A military radar such as TPS-75 is measured in MEGAwatts. Specifically up to 5 MWs though it typically operates at 2.8ish. Standing in a TPS-75s transmission path WILL be hazardous to your health. It can cause BURNS and most certainly has the ENERGY to penetrate cell walls and bombard DNA at close range. Your CELLPHONEs transmitter DOES NOT have this energy level. It is PHYSICALLY incapable of PENETRATING the cell to bombard DNA. Physics just says no.

Oh and just to be a bit scary.. TV antenas make military ones look tame.
Click to expand...
Well I guess you weren't referring to radio frequencies that cell phones use. The sun comparison in that case is not interesting to me personally. Your radar example is more interesting to me.

I RECOGNIZE that frequencies below visible is NOT ionizing, and SO are probably not going TO cause cancer. But i AM curious about other possible health EFFECTS from radio frequenCIES.
SOrry, i thought your capitals were amusing :p
 
5G masts will reek havoc on weather patterns, and soon everything look like in blade runner.
 
serpretetsky said:
Well I guess you weren't referring to radio frequencies that cell phones use. The sun comparison in that case is not interesting to me personally. Your radar example is more interesting to me.

I RECOGNIZE that frequencies below visible is NOT ionizing, and SO are probably not going TO cause cancer. But i AM curious about other possible health EFFECTS from radio frequenCIES.
SOrry, i thought your capitals were amusing :p
Click to expand...
For fun, Light CAN be ionizing in specific circumstances.

For health effects its a pretty simple answer. Until the transmission energy is high enough to actually apply enough energy per second to a cell no damage will ever occur. At higher energy levels such as a TPS-75 the main damage is mostly thermal(yes radio waves are photonic) with an additional effect of mild cellular damage. Seriously I've seen guys warm up their lunches with fire control radars. Radio waves can interfere with elements in your cells and skull at high energy levels. Microwaves are known for seriously screwing with the electronics of the mind at high levels. Radio waves can do the same things... but the power required to do that is still the key factor. At mW levels, they just won't penetrate with enough energy to do anything. Any kind of distance between you and the transmitter is going to rapidly destroy the radio waves ability to even warm a cell. Considering you have between 1 and 3 inches between your ear and your brain in most cases the statistical chance of anything reaching your brain to cause damage is zero.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
5G is a farce. Pretty soon the hype machine house of cards will all come crashing down and some large telecom operators are going to be hurting.

The problem is that there are two main frequency ranges.

Range 1:
Operates in the same frequency ranges as current cell/mobile frequencies. Performance increases over 4G LTE+ are small. 15-50% at most, probably closer to the lower end of that.

Range 2:
This is where the real 40Gbit 5G speed claims come in. Problem is we are talking millimeter wave frequencies, 24-86 GHz. Two things happen as you raise the frequency. You get shorter range capability, and you are less able to penetrate objects. At the frequencies 5G intends to use, we will be limited to about a 200 yard range, and it will require perfect line of sight. Hold even a sheet of paper in between and you lose signal. Essentially, it winds up being useless.

So, in other words, practical applications of 5G will essentially be 4G LTE+ bandwidth, +15%. That's it.

There are going to be some pretty pissed shareholders when everyone is done hyping up 5G and the truth comes out.
Click to expand...

Umm, wait. When it comes to "Range 2", it just means you need adequate antenna saturation. Buildings will get range extenders, homes will get repeaters, they'll sell us 100s of thousands of devices. Furthermore, just like 3G remained for a very long time to "fill in" for shortages of 4G coverage, 4G will fill in for 5G, and data will be QOS by network. In other words, 5G will be used for some types of traffic in some environments, but not all types of traffic and not accrossed all towers. Think of your wireless router with a uplink to an external antenna.

I don't think 5G will be a failure. I think 5G will be different than what we are used too. I also think that because 5G adoption will finally finish off 3G, that 4G coverage will have to be pushed out farther than before. I also think 5G might make high speed bandwidth a reality for more people as last mile internet access to small communities.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Why are we even discussing climate change in a 5G thread?
Click to expand...

Because the article the topic is based on brought it up ?

Here is the one thing I'd like to , um 50/50, point out, or throw out for comment;

This article is about how 5G could interfere with weather forecasting. This article talks about several methods meterologists use. So is this really the bad news they claim it is or not?
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour
The different techniques for measuring water vapour include the use of:

  • Passive microwave sensors installed on polar orbiting platforms;
  • Infrared sensors, which constitute the longest satellite record of water vapour profiling and sounding instruments;
  • Ultraviolet/visible/near-infrared imagers (daytime retrieval methods that use two channels and provide high spatial resolution (~ 1 km));
  • Limb sounding, the technique of sounding various layers of the atmosphere by observation along a tangent ray that does not intersect the Earth’s surface;
  • Radiosondes, a commonly used instrument for in situ sounding that provides high-quality profiles of relative humidity (among other variables) at a still unmatched vertical resolution of approximately 5 metres – on a global scale about 1 000 radiosondes are launched each day. The humidity sensors on radiosondes give good-quality humidity data throughout most of the troposphere, however, important corrections must be applied to their humidity measurements in the upper troposphere and stratosphere;
  • Balloon-borne frost point hygrometers that use a cooled mirror, whose temperature is carefully controlled at the frost point temperature;
  • Ground-based instruments, which allow for semi-continuous probing of the air mass over a fixed location; and
  • Various long-range commercial aircraft equipped with vapour sensors.
Click to expand...
 
Not like FCC is doing something bad. It's the 5G standards which are not even US.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
No. The criticism of the millimeter band for 5g stands. I understand what you are saying, about future applications but I can't think of any application that the combination of short range and line of sight problems doesn't sink.

The problems don't just apply to traditional handset use.

Vehicle to vehicle communications for autonomous vehicles? Do you really want a crucial safety feature interrupted because you lost line of sight?

I'm trying to think of ANY application that loss of line of sight doesn't kill. Long distance transmissions from tower to tower maybe? Unless some bird flies in between, it should be good. Oh, but wait, the range is limited to ~200 yards.

No, 5g is a marginal ~25% improvement over LTE Advanced. All other claims are just plain fraudulent. There is no way engineers in the field haven't known this from day one. It isn't rocket science.

I can't wait for the day of reckoning and the fallout from this one. Heads will roll. Enron will look like small potatoes. This is massive industry-wide fraud, causing a trillion dollar worldwide race to marginal improvement.
Click to expand...

But my understanding from past experience, 5G will not replace 4G, it will replace 3G and supplement 4G. Are you getting something different from somewhere?

There remains a serious coverage issue, that 4G is lacking, 3G was filling many of the gaps at least for voice calls. So I figure there will have to be a push to expand the 4G coverage dramatically which won't be a bad thing.
 
lcpiper said:
But my understanding from past experience, 5G will not replace 4G, it will replace 3G and supplement 4G. Are you getting something different from somewhere?

There remains a serious coverage issue, that 4G is lacking, 3G was filling many of the gaps at least for voice calls. So I figure there will have to be a push to expand the 4G coverage dramatically which won't be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think they do VOIP on 4G now so we don't need to switch to 3G for voice, well looks like it here.
 
MMitch said:
I think they do VOIP on 4G now so we don't need to switch to 3G for voice, well looks like it here.
Click to expand...

Currently in the US we use 4G for data plans, and both 4G and 3G for voice, 3G coverage is better. That's why when you are driving cross country, you loose data signal (4G), before you lose voice (3G). I'm not saying that all voice is over 3G, just that there is more 3G coverage, and many phones with non-data plans are piped to 3G.

That being said, the networks have been steadily shutting down 3G services accrossed the country. It's not all gone yet, but it's going bye bye. This is going to leave areas that had 3G service only without coverage and 4G will have to be pushed out to them.

And, because of the signal characteristics that Zarathustra[H] correctly reported, spot coverage for 5G may even become available to communities that used to only have 5G. As Z pointed out, part of the 5G spec includes a 4G type band. If you have to push 4G out anyway, and because of the realities of the high 5G band, it sort of makes sense. Open area 5G coverage in the low end band, and if the region has enough need for it, some point 5G service for specific use cases in the high band.

Either way, they'll be trenching for fiber, as long as that happens, the towers can carry whatever.
 
MMitch said:
I agree but are you saying 5G isn't good progress ? I think 5G is a stepping stone for future tech. The way they use mmW is new at consumer level and is bound to open a new world of tech.
We shall see what is born from it in a few years, right now it's way too easy to be narrow minded and say cellphone (and any other devices) won't benefit from it. People said the same thing about Dual Core, 1080P, 4K, VR, DVD, cellphones, etc.
Click to expand...

None of those technologies had the potential for interference physically and electrically with other things. Well, OK, the cellphone did. But the jury is still out on the cellphone, seeing as we have to make laws about cell phone usage...an unintended side effect.

"I'm not saying I don't want a new Microwave with Alexa built-in, I'm just saying maybe that metal screen on the front is ok being left there."
 
https://xkcd.com/1321/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Yes he is a web comic, but he does research his comics so that they are as accurate as possible.

I also like knowing when storms are forming over our oceans so I would prefer the satellites to not be degraded by ground based interference. I also like my GPS receiver to work and as such I would prefer if they don't license ground based spectrum right next to GPS frequencies.
 
Last edited:
I’m all for cleaner environment, but no way in hell am I gonna let someone like AOC tell me how much energy I can use, what car to buy, size/type of my home.

We don’t need to go backwards and start living as nomads to be “green”. We need to, as humans have throughout history, come up with new ingenious ways to improve our standard of living and at the same time be more sustainable. Fusion energy is one possible example.
 
I am sure this will end up with taxes on things. Just like gas guzzler taxes and so forth. In the end you won't be told to use less energy, but you will be much more financially well off if you use less.

The tech all exists to drastically reduce our energy consumption, it is just a few percent more expensive than the standard so it doesn't get implemented. Foam wall insulation will get you well past R30 while pretty much eliminating air infiltration, it only costs a slight bit more, but it is virtually never used in the US residential market because it requires specialized equipment and is slightly more expensive.

Geothermal heating and cooling for houses and hot water, a bit more expensive to do during new construction, but would drastically reduce our peak energy demand during summer and be a big win. Not being done except in a small percentage of homes where energy is expensive.

Obviously electric cars are more efficient than their gas equivalents. Just check the mpge ratings.

https://energyinnovationact.org/
I don't know if this particular bill will pass or not, but it certainly frames the discussion around this topic.
 
nwrtarget said:
I am sure this will end up with taxes on things. Just like gas guzzler taxes and so forth. In the end you won't be told to use less energy, but you will be much more financially well off if you use less.

The tech all exists to drastically reduce our energy consumption, it is just a few percent more expensive than the standard so it doesn't get implemented. Foam wall insulation will get you well past R30 while pretty much eliminating air infiltration, it only costs a slight bit more, but it is virtually never used in the US residential market because it requires specialized equipment and is slightly more expensive.

Geothermal heating and cooling for houses and hot water, a bit more expensive to do during new construction, but would drastically reduce our peak energy demand during summer and be a big win. Not being done except in a small percentage of homes where energy is expensive.

Obviously electric cars are more efficient than their gas equivalents. Just check the mpge ratings.

https://energyinnovationact.org/
I don't know if this particular bill will pass or not, but it certainly frames the discussion around this topic.
Click to expand...
Foam insulation isn't "slightly more expensive." I've known only one guy that had it done in his attic - it was WAY more expensive. I'm assuming you're talking about the stuff that is like expansion foam. It's applied, not installed.

I have had a geothermal system. Very efficient. Very expensive. I'm not sure I actually saved anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top