5g and the weather

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by $trapped, May 23, 2019.

  1. $trapped

    $trapped [H]Lite

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    So for some strange reason the FCC is selling spectrum that will interfere with weather forecasts. Is this really how far climate change deniers are willing to go to destroy our ability to forecast and respond to weather related events? I'd be willing to believe the FCC is just trying to bring in some coin, but this: "The FCC plans future 5G auctions for the radio frequency bands near ones used to detect rain and snow (36–37 GHz), atmospheric temperature (50.2–50.4 GHz), and clouds and ice (80–90 GHz)."

    https://www.wired.com/story/5g-networks-could-throw-weather-forecasting-into-chaos/
     
  2. JustinCorrigible

    JustinCorrigible Gawd

    Messages:
    761
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Most forecasts around here always sucked with regard to rain and snow, anyhow. Not that I care about faster cell service. I want decent coverage at my own house first.
     
  3. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,192
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Should be fine as long as they aren't near dopplar towers or are low-power units. At that freq they won't even penetrate clouds, nevermind buildings and trees, which is why dopplar weather stations use it in the first place.

    And because it's dopplar (probably pulsed dopplar) it probably would be fine anyway.
     
    jfreund, N4CR, AceGoober and 3 others like this.
  4. Right? I can't even get 2 bars at my house. I'd be happy with 4G coverage first.
     
  5. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,332
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  6. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    764
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Yeah well you need to think further in time... 5G would be ideal with self-driving car (cars would p2p). Also, an internet mesh using all IoT on 5G. That's on the mmW frequencies.
    The lower band is intended for typical cellphones. Higher band would also be ideal for wireless VR ?

    Anyway, I let you search on it. People said the same thing with 4K, 1080P, LTE, etc... Applications may not be now or clear but trust me, more BW = more use, less latency (mmW) = more use.
     
  7. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,332
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I'd still argue its usefulness is extremely limited by range and line of sight issues. None of the examples you mention are immune from these problems.
     
    AceGoober, Armenius and the901 like this.
  8. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    764
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Beamforming and beamtracking seems to be one answer to that. And again, we shall see where they take this.
     
    AceGoober likes this.
  9. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,498
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Has nothing to do with Radar of any type. Some of the proposed 5G freqs are very near the freqs that water vapor emits. Some weather satellites use the amount of emitted RF radiation to figure out how much water vapor is in the air. Something useful for storm forecasting. The signal strength of water vapor is very low and easily swamped by the 5G signals. Could result in a signification reduction in storm forecasting in the coastal areas.
     
    Baenwort, the901 and $trapped like this.
  10. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,192
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    They would have to go through the water vapor to reach the satellites. It would be diffracted, reflected, absorbed, and dissipated long before that happened.
     
    Armenius and captaindiptoad like this.
  11. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,332
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    How much disruption could it possibly cause if it can't even reach a range of 200 yards under ideal circumstances, and can't even penetrate a sheet of paper?
     
  12. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,192
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Well, let's say a drop of water vapor releases 1uW of radiation (probably grossly overestimated, but for example). That energy is capable of reaching and being detected by a satellite receiver. Now, imagine you have 20 transmitters broadcasting at 20W. Given clear skies and no other obstructions, that energy (at least some) could easily reach the same satellite and beyond at a much higher energy level than that of the water vapor. I imagine the effect would be something like if you were to over expose a photograph. All you'd see would be white, for the most part anyway.

    That said, I would like to think the people who are working on this technology aren't dumb and broadcasting directly into space, but rather directionally toward points of interest. You would still get some energy reflected into space, but it should be much lower than if you point an antenna directly up.
     
  13. filip

    filip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,750
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    The best model currently can predict with good accuracy 1 week in advance. Big deal. Catastrophic Climate Change will not be in our life time.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  14. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,332
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    The mid West just got 130+ tornadoes in 5 days.

    It kind of seems like catastrophic climate change is now, Bd it's only getting worse.
     
    thenapalm likes this.
  15. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,192
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    it's not terrible, we're actually still under the number from two years ago, and the three year average. (prelim numbers of course) last month was pretty bad though.
     
    captaindiptoad likes this.
  16. KD5ZXG

    KD5ZXG Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    409
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Concave urthers, go figure...

    Line of sight is no problem if you put mirror balls everywhere.
    Far superior convex technology already exists to see around
    hazardous corners, observe shoplifting, and disco. Listen not
    to the raving of concavers....
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  17. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,511
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Climate change deniers haha

    The jokes, the jokes!
     
    Armenius likes this.
  18. iDShaDoW

    iDShaDoW Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    184
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Yup, not in our lifetime so screw it. Let's kick the can down the road and leave that problem for others to figure out once we've potentially screwed things beyond the point of no return.

    /sarcasm
     
    KATEKATEKATE likes this.
  19. filip

    filip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,750
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Sure why not, I'll be dead by then so I don't care. (no sarcasm)
     
    auntjemima and captaindiptoad like this.
  20. Nafensoriel

    Nafensoriel Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2015
    Dust screws with MMW radar. Do you realize just how much crap floats around in the bathtub we call an atmosphere naturally? Doplar systems will not be affected in any practical way.

    The accuracy of dopplar based weather prediction is also nowhere near accurate enough to use for long term climate modelling. Accuracy only exists in large footprints(km+ x km+ grids) and drastically degrades after 24hrs. Technically it degrades rapidly after 6hours. After 7 days it's quite bluntly a guess that can only be made due to recorded data of previous weather patterns.

    It also should be mentioned that weather-related climate change is extremely... extremely... slow. Climate change is measured in hundreds of years. We are still studying the realities of just what our industrial revolution as a species has done and the effects of that revolution that started over a hundred years ago is still applying to today's world. You won't have a desert planet in your lifetime. You won't have it in your children's lifetime. This panic party BS is stupid. Calm down. Be rational. Find solutions that don't revolve around silicon tetrachloride or fairy dust and realize that shockingly enough.. right now.. The OIL industries are doing MORE to combat climate change than all eco groups combined. Hell, I work in a bloody industry that consumes over 600+ tons of CO2 per day at one plant and eco-activists tell me I'm evil because one of our starting products happens to be natural gas. It doesn't matter that we process it into a form that can never be methane again and actually permanently traps that CO2 in a form that even when burned can only release 25% of that CO2. People aren't educated enough on the street to see more than "natural gas company". Don't be one of those people. You'll look stupid :D.
     
    Revdarian, jfreund, Laowai and 2 others like this.
  21. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,511
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    According to AOC earth is going to be a fiery destroyed hell world in 12 yea... err 11.5 years now.

    I'm guessing the Earth is Flat too
     
  22. Thevoid230

    Thevoid230 n00b

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Whether or not climate change is a problem does not matter, because the answer is the same either way. We need to pursue clean energy, including next generation nuclear (which is inherently safe from meltdowns and uses waste as fuel) and "renewables" as fast as possible. Because renewables alone cannot supply the energy needs of the planet (due to wildly variable output that rarely matches demand), generation 4 nuclear is the best option currently available to meet near future baseload needs.
     
  23. Sycraft

    Sycraft [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,451
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    A good example of how limited it is, including with those things, is wireless HDMI. This is a real thing, you can buy equipment for it and have been able to for years. Your laptop may support it. You find two varieties:

    1) 5GHz. This is very similar to WiDi (which is what your laptop may have). Operates in the 5GHz ban, usually using DFS bands. Can do 1080p60 and 5.1 audio, however has to use lossy compression. Works pretty good for things like presentations and such there is generally no loss, and for movies it usually isn't very noticeable. Games are where you'd most likely see the loss.

    2) 60GHz. This is more or less a "wireless cable". Everything just passes straight through. 1080p60 7.1 uncompressed and theoretically you could make 4k variants, there has been talk about it. No interference concerns as nothing uses those bands right now.

    So guess which is more widely deployed? That's right, 5GHz. Reason is the 60Ghz stuff is extremely fiddly. It takes very little to be in the way and it stops working. If you do something like put the receiver in an AV stand, odds are you get no signal. Even in the open the range is not great. A large auditorium can be big enough that it just can't handle it. The kind of distances and restrictions it works over usually mean that you just run a fiber and call it done.

    High frequency wireless just had lots of limits on it. Doesn't mean it is completely useless or anything, but it isn't going to magically mean that everything can get high bandwidth OTA. Range and degradation are serious issues, and there's not a lot that can be done about it. It is more useful as an in-room wireless technology where you have devices that are wireless, but fairly close to the transmitter and have a fairly straight shot. Like a conference room or something high frequency wireless could provide much faster in-room speeds for people. For longer range stuff, like cellular data, lower frequencies are the key since they penetrate buildings. The 600Mhz band is what's exciting since it penetrates better than 700Mhz and you build devices that use channels form both for more speed. That's great and all, but not going to give you stupid fast speeds.

    Despite all the uneducated tech-journalist hype things are likely to continue as they do now: Fiber optics are going to be used for big speeds, copper cables will be used for medium speed distribution, and wireless will be used when wires are inconvenient for ok-ish speeds access.
     
    Armenius and Baenwort like this.
  24. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,632
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
  25. $trapped

    $trapped [H]Lite

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    So to sum up that Verge article, which went into a bit more depth than the wired one I originally posted: "CTIA tried to ridicule these requests as fake news, by publishing an argument about how the scientific community’s claims relied on a 13-year-old weather sensor that was never actually used." Scientific community quickly rebuts that claim by stating what sensor is actually in current use. CTIA then changes it's original criticism of the old sensor to "the newer sensor is less sensitive to interference from 5G signals." So not sure what all the Alex Jones vs. Verge and conspiracy b.s. was all about, but yeah, I defer to real scientists and their research to help me sort this kind of stuff out than tuning into Alex Jones, who might be right that 5g has problems, but they just aren't quite the same problems.
     
    Baenwort likes this.
  26. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    764
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Wow so much disinformation in this thread :eek: Are you guys against evolution of electronics ? Like because you can't think of an application right now, it's bound to be DOA ?
    mmW 5G is not meant for 1 direct connection and if you can't google that by yourself... please when reading on the matter check for "s" at the end of words as in "many".
     
    auntjemima likes this.
  27. TordanGow

    TordanGow [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,130
    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Generally speaking I like progress, but let's be honest here, not all change is good.
     
    Armenius and Baenwort like this.
  28. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    764
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    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.
     
  29. earnolmartin

    earnolmartin Gawd

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    I can't wait to get cancer from 5G!

    Tough choice. Cancer or slower internet (and 5g not really being that much faster as mentioned earlier in this thread). Cancer! Yay! I love how we actually study effects of new technologies before deploying them... oh wait... nevermind. We don't. We're just guinea pigs.
     
  30. Nauseous

    Nauseous Gawd

    Messages:
    872
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    progress is progress and the machine will keep rolling as long as dollars are still coming in. cuz when it comes down to it, convenience trumps everything else.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  31. Sycraft

    Sycraft [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,451
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    I know right, I mean 90GHz is extremely high frequency it must cause ionizing damage. It is scary! It is just a good thing we aren't regularly exposed to even higher frequencies, like say 500THz that would be really scary! Oh wait... we have another name for 500THz let me see if I can remember it... Ahh yes "green" is what you'd more commonly call it.

    Seriously man, quit with the cancer scare mongering. Ionizing radiation is the stuff that can increase cancer risk. That is around about in the 800THz and up range. So UV, X-Rays, Gamma Rays, and Cosmic Rays. Low frequencies like this are not ionizing, not cancer causing. IR is much higher frequency and you are awash in that all the time, as it is thermal radiation so anything giving off heat is emitting IR (you included). Visible light is then even higher frequency than that.
     
    Revdarian, jfreund and defaultluser like this.
  32. earnolmartin

    earnolmartin Gawd

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Just a few links containing information as to why we should further study 5G:

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/4288258/5g-mobile-network-scotland-ee-risks/

    https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell...s-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/

    Mainstream misinformation view:

    https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-addresses-5g-safety-concerns-in-letters-to-lawmakers/

    I trust Ajit Pai, said no one ever. Like our government saying that Glyphosate is completely safe... hahaha
     
  33. PhaseNoise

    PhaseNoise [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,805
    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Oh crikey, not this again.
     
  34. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,332
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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
     
  35. Hatriot

    Hatriot Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    156
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Yes because in your short millennial lifetime you have enough experience to dictate to the rest of the population what is "normal". It is not getting worse and I know you have it so easy that your guilt compels you to jump on board with this cult to assuage your laughably easy life. The most telling aspect of the AGW doomsayers is that none of you ever actually are willing to sacrifice personally for what you claim you believe. You simply want to use the government to force a way of life you would never willingly live on your own without a government mandate. You first. Didn't think so.
     
  36. raz-0

    raz-0 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,531
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Yes, compared to last year when there were record low tornadoes to the point you barely even heard the storm chasers piss and moan about google dmeonitizing their youtube channels.

    The US gets a hell of a lot more tornadoes than you think. We've got a ways to go for a record this year. The placement has been unfortunate though with regards to population centers.
     
  37. Sycraft

    Sycraft [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,451
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    And here's the CDC's info on radiation, which I'm much more likely to listen to than a random site that is all about alarmism over cellphones and WiFi. It's so funny because people just won't stop with this shit. Back in the day it was powerlines, there were groups of crazies sure powerlines caused cancer. Then cellphones, then wifi. People hear "radiation" and turn their logic off and fear on.
     
    Revdarian, jfreund and defaultluser like this.
  38. Joust

    Joust 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,881
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    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.
     
    Hakaba, jfreund, N4CR and 1 other person like this.
  39. earnolmartin

    earnolmartin Gawd

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    You trust the CDC? lol
     
    N4CR likes this.
  40. $trapped

    $trapped [H]Lite

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    You have to eventually trust someone when it comes to this type of information. So care to share who you turn to?
     
    Revdarian and Silentbob343 like this.
Tags: