Remember me
▼ Content

5G



Page 1 of 212>
5G21-01-2022 21:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2481)
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
21-01-2022 21:26
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.
21-01-2022 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


The 5G network operates at 3.7 - 3.98Ghz.
The radar altimeters systems in aircraft operate at 4.2 - 4.4Ghz.

The minimum separation of these two signals is about 0.2Ghz or 200Mhz.

Some airlines are concerned the 5G towers will interfere with the aircraft's radar altimeter, even though no demonstrated event like this has occurred.

Radar altimeters are subject to several kinds of faults and even intereference, which is why they are not used to as a critical altitude reference during instrument flight. A sensitive barometric altimeter is used for that.

It will not make airplanes fall out of the sky. There is just a fear that altitude information is going indicate wrong (even though there is no demonstrated case of this actually happening from 5G signals).

Yet another unreasonable fear. There's a lot of that around these days.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-01-2022 22:25
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


The 5G network operates at 3.7 - 3.98Ghz.
The radar altimeters systems in aircraft operate at 4.2 - 4.4Ghz.

The minimum separation of these two signals is about 0.2Ghz or 200Mhz.

Some airlines are concerned the 5G towers will interfere with the aircraft's radar altimeter, even though no demonstrated event like this has occurred.

Radar altimeters are subject to several kinds of faults and even intereference, which is why they are not used to as a critical altitude reference during instrument flight. A sensitive barometric altimeter is used for that.

It will not make airplanes fall out of the sky. There is just a fear that altitude information is going indicate wrong (even though there is no demonstrated case of this actually happening from 5G signals).

Yet another unreasonable fear. There's a lot of that around these days.



Maybe the concern is 6G? That would interfere with a radar's altimeter. With a range of 0.28 Ghz then 3.98 becomes 4.26 Ghz or higher.
21-01-2022 22:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.

They are not designed to. Radio is radio. It still works, dude.
James___ wrote:
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.

Depends on terrain and licensing. A single high power tower put on a mountain around here can carry for quite a few miles.

Flat areas tend to use more towers, particularly in dense populations. The extra towers are better able to handle the higher traffic found in such areas.
James___ wrote:
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate.

No. Signals still get weaker as it expands from the antenna at rate shown by the inverse square law.

Just like any light.
James___ wrote:
With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.

He's full of shit. They are on widely different frequencies. Any loss of connectivity to your WIFI is NOT due to 4G (or 5G!)


James___ wrote:
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-01-2022 22:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


The 5G network operates at 3.7 - 3.98Ghz.
The radar altimeters systems in aircraft operate at 4.2 - 4.4Ghz.

The minimum separation of these two signals is about 0.2Ghz or 200Mhz.

Some airlines are concerned the 5G towers will interfere with the aircraft's radar altimeter, even though no demonstrated event like this has occurred.

Radar altimeters are subject to several kinds of faults and even intereference, which is why they are not used to as a critical altitude reference during instrument flight. A sensitive barometric altimeter is used for that.

It will not make airplanes fall out of the sky. There is just a fear that altitude information is going indicate wrong (even though there is no demonstrated case of this actually happening from 5G signals).

Yet another unreasonable fear. There's a lot of that around these days.



Maybe the concern is 6G? That would interfere with a radar's altimeter. With a range of 0.28 Ghz then 3.98 becomes 4.26 Ghz or higher.

There is no 6G.

3G, 4G, and 5G are PROTOCOLS, not frequencies.
Range is not a frequency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-01-2022 22:31
21-01-2022 23:14
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


The 5G network operates at 3.7 - 3.98Ghz.
The radar altimeters systems in aircraft operate at 4.2 - 4.4Ghz.

The minimum separation of these two signals is about 0.2Ghz or 200Mhz.

Some airlines are concerned the 5G towers will interfere with the aircraft's radar altimeter, even though no demonstrated event like this has occurred.

Radar altimeters are subject to several kinds of faults and even intereference, which is why they are not used to as a critical altitude reference during instrument flight. A sensitive barometric altimeter is used for that.

It will not make airplanes fall out of the sky. There is just a fear that altitude information is going indicate wrong (even though there is no demonstrated case of this actually happening from 5G signals).

Yet another unreasonable fear. There's a lot of that around these days.



Maybe the concern is 6G? That would interfere with a radar's altimeter. With a range of 0.28 Ghz then 3.98 becomes 4.26 Ghz or higher.

There is no 6G.

3G, 4G, and 5G are PROTOCOLS, not frequencies.
Range is not a frequency.



The difference between any G from what I've read is about 3 times more digital information. This means that from 2G to 3G is "3x" while from 3G to 4G is also
"3x". This means that the amount of digital information from 2G to 4G is a factor of 9. Each generation is a literal volume of digital data that is carried by that signal.
22-01-2022 00:11
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4259)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.
22-01-2022 00:23
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.



And yet your girlfriend still doesn't understand what an "O" is.
22-01-2022 03:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.


The 5G network operates at 3.7 - 3.98Ghz.
The radar altimeters systems in aircraft operate at 4.2 - 4.4Ghz.

The minimum separation of these two signals is about 0.2Ghz or 200Mhz.

Some airlines are concerned the 5G towers will interfere with the aircraft's radar altimeter, even though no demonstrated event like this has occurred.

Radar altimeters are subject to several kinds of faults and even intereference, which is why they are not used to as a critical altitude reference during instrument flight. A sensitive barometric altimeter is used for that.

It will not make airplanes fall out of the sky. There is just a fear that altitude information is going indicate wrong (even though there is no demonstrated case of this actually happening from 5G signals).

Yet another unreasonable fear. There's a lot of that around these days.



Maybe the concern is 6G? That would interfere with a radar's altimeter. With a range of 0.28 Ghz then 3.98 becomes 4.26 Ghz or higher.

There is no 6G.

3G, 4G, and 5G are PROTOCOLS, not frequencies.
Range is not a frequency.



The difference between any G from what I've read is about 3 times more digital information. This means that from 2G to 3G is "3x" while from 3G to 4G is also
"3x". This means that the amount of digital information from 2G to 4G is a factor of 9. Each generation is a literal volume of digital data that is carried by that signal.

These are protocols, not frequencies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.

Most WIFI routers are made in the U.S. or the SOTC(Cisco, Netgear, Linksys) or Taiwan (ASUS, DLink)
China has a good brand called TPLink as far as capabilities go, but it's not the most reliable hunk of junk, mostly due to serious bugs in it's software they've never fixed, that can cause a hard lock.

The model I have that was provided by my internet provider was built in the SOTC. That company has lately been outsourcing some manufacturing to Mexico.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 22-01-2022 03:26
22-01-2022 03:20
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY
22-01-2022 03:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY

?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 04:06
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY

?


Americans hate Norwegians.
22-01-2022 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY

?


Americans hate Norwegians.

?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 04:50
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY

?


Americans hate Norwegians.

?


This is about climate change and what Nazis failed to do. I am the result of failed Nazi policy.
Edited on 22-01-2022 04:53
22-01-2022 06:06
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
There are those who are the right people. And when we understand this, we can have a world where we belong because we accept it is based on who is the right people. The basis of the 3rd Reich and hatred everywhere.
22-01-2022 06:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2481)
Into the Night wrote:
He's full of shit.


Just wondering if my guy is fullashit too...

I have fiber optic provided by my electric cooperative. Very nice for rural, up to a GB per second if I want to pay for it...I don't. I get about 85 mbps.

Anyway, my router runs 2.4 or 5 GHz.
He said faster on 5 but not as much range. Haven't really ranged it, but 5 is definitely faster by about 10-15 mbps.

Curious on anyones answer. I'll range test it tomorrow and see who's right.



Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
22-01-2022 07:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
James___ wrote: Americans hate Norwegians.

Yep. We've had 'em in our sights ever since they let their Jet Stream track mud across our carpets. Norwegians are incessantly bugging the crap out of Americans because they are bored to tears in Norway where there is nothing to do but freeze to death and they aren't smart to enough to just frick'n move. They're like Canadians in that regard.

JOKE: A Norwegian was bothering Americans in the US when he found an old lamp in a landfill. Upon rubbing some dust off of it, a genie popped out and said "Congratulations, you get a wish!" The Norwegian thought for a second and said "I wish for peace in the Middle East!" The genie rolls his eyes and says "I'm just a genie. Something that grandiose is beyond my limited magic. Can you wish for something else?" At that, the Norwegian thought again for a moment and said "OK, make me intelligent, witty and fun to be around."

The genie grimaced and thought in silence for a while and then said "All right, let's give that 'peace in the Middle East' wish a try."
22-01-2022 07:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
James___ wrote:There are those who are the right people.

That would be me, and I'm properly referred to in the singular.

James___ wrote:And when we understand this, we can have a world where we belong because we accept it is based on who is the right people.

So start accepting me as the right person. Go on, say it. Say it.

James___ wrote:The basis of the 3rd Reich and hatred everywhere.

This is not a complete sentence. Hint: You need a predicate.
22-01-2022 10:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's the truth here? Am I supposed to believe implementations of 5G is going to make planes fall out of the sky?

Something stinks.



5G might be where wireless goes wrong. The signal from a tower can't go that far.
Where I used to live they were putting them in and it was that every block it seemed needed a tower. And that is being literal.
The issue is that because as each G increases in magnitude, its signal decays or suffers entropy at a much greater rate. With 4G I was told by my internet provider that if I went out into my backyard I could lose the signal from my Wi-Fi router at home.
The real issue might be is it worth the extra cost and investment? Basically this type of technology when compared to what smart devices people can afford might be reaching a critical limit.


Your home wi-fi is intentionally low power, so it doesn't interfere with an entire apartment building, or a whole neighborhood. Your provider, will set you up with the weakest, cheapest, piece of crap China can produce. You'll want to 'upgrade' to their 'premium' services. Basically, everyone gets the same service, into their homes. The equipment they provide you, determines the speed and quality.

If you wish, you CAN increase the power settings on most any WIFI router. Not a good idea though, you might be in violation of FCC rules, and you could cause interference with other WIFI routers nearby. While these settings are available on most any WIFI router, you better know what you're doing before you mess with them.


And we're back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqLRS81XtY

?


Americans hate Norwegians.

?


This is about climate change and what Nazis failed to do. I am the result of failed Nazi policy.

?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 10:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
James___ wrote:
There are those who are the right people. And when we understand this, we can have a world where we belong because we accept it is based on who is the right people. The basis of the 3rd Reich and hatred everywhere.

WTF are you talking about??


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 10:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
He's full of shit.


Just wondering if my guy is fullashit too...

Probably. I've found most internet and cable installers know nothing about the technology they are installing. They tend to be low paid schmucks willing to drive a truck or work a retail counter at a big box electronics store. Cable installers are particularly lame. They lazily drape cable on the ground and leave it there for the lawnmower, or bury it less than an inch or so deep and could care less about erosion.

NONE of them understand WIFI except it's that magick box that you connect the cable or fiber to.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I have fiber optic provided by my electric cooperative. Very nice for rural, up to a GB per second if I want to pay for it...I don't. I get about 85 mbps.

Okay. Same thing applies.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Anyway, my router runs 2.4 or 5 GHz.

What are sometimes known as the 'slow' or 'fast' frequencies. The faster protocol runs on 5Ghz.
GasGuzzler wrote:
He said faster on 5 but not as much range. Haven't really ranged it, but 5 is definitely faster by about 10-15 mbps.

He's full of shit.

Each frequency of radio has different opacity of materials. Now to describe what I mean by this:

Radio is light. It's just a VERY low frequency of light (well below infrared). Like any frequency of light, different materials may appear transparent, partially opaque, or fully opaque. As an example, you are opaque to visible light. X rays, however (a higher frequency of light), pass right through your body as if it were partially opaque (and partially transparent). You can expose black and white gradient profile film to this light and develop normally. The result is an X-ray image. Nowadays, of course, in the world of digital cameras and digital flatscreen displays, an X-ray machine is taken with a digital camera like everything else.

Most radio frequencies pass right through your body as if were completely transparent. You don't even know they are there. One band, however, treats your body as it were partially opaque again. This band is dangerous. It has a wavelength about 12.4 cm. This is close to the natural oscillating frequency of liquid water molecules. This frequency can be absorbed by those molecules and converted into thermal energy. High powered weather radar makes use of this frequency to look for clouds and rain. It is the same frequency that a microwave oven uses. Exposure to this frequency at high power literally starts to cook you from the inside out. This is fortunately nowhere near any WIFI frequency!

Your range is unknown. The technician is making a pure guess. It depends on the materials in your house where the WIFI is mounted, whether the WIFI is on an upper floor or not, and a host of other factors. It may be greater than the 2.5 Ghz signal, it may be less. The two frequencies propagate differently.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Curious on anyones answer. I'll range test it tomorrow and see who's right.


I cannot predict. No one can. Go measure it. Find out yourself. Be aware that communications failure may occur because a WIFI at your neighbor or something, not because of signal strength. Unfortunately, the only way to really tell is to use an expensive piece of test equipment. A linux laptop can give some useful information though, if you know how to use the WIFI software in linux.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 22-01-2022 10:40
22-01-2022 17:01
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4259)
WiFi, cell phones, aren't just one frequency. They occupy a range (band) of frequencies. The data transfer speed isn't just about frequency. How much volume is being pushed at the time. Your device, will search through the frequencies, and try to find one that is less used. Data is transferred in packets, and checked for errors. Corrupted packets are resent, until they get through, or abandoned (fail). Higher frequencies can transfer more data, faster, but are prone to more error packets. You are less likely to see anything, because re-sending them is really fast, don't even notice.

When you crank up the power, more devices see your usage, and try to find a less used frequency. Basically, you are hogging the bandwidth. A few houses in the neighborhood won't be a huge problem, since most people don't really need the speed they pay for anyway. But, if most of the neighborhood does it, then some people are going to get little use of their WiFi.
22-01-2022 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
HarveyH55 wrote:
WiFi, cell phones, aren't just one frequency. They occupy a range (band) of frequencies.

You are describing spread spectrum radio.

WIFI is just 6 frequencies. Your route sends out a beacon on the frequency you've programmed it for. That is also the communications frequency. It does not use spread spectrum.

Cell phones have a command channel and a dozen of so data channels (for a given tower). The command channel is used to log your phone into the tower, and to move your connection from tower to tower. It is also used for EAS modes 2-6. EAS mode 1 uses a single shared data channel.

During normal operation, your cell phone simply listens for the beacon identifier (it's 'call sign'). If it is different than what the phone knows, your phone will transmit it's own call sign, attempting to log into a tower.

If a call comes in, your phone will be notified on the command frequency, and assigned a data channel to conduct the phone conversation on.
If an SMS comes in, your phone will be notified to pick up the message on a data channel.
If you initiate a call or SMS, your phone will ask the command channel for a data channel to conduct the call or message sending.

Once the call completes or the SMS is done sending, the data channel is released and everything returns to monitoring the command channel (which is always monitored anyway).

That is spread spectrum technology. Essentially an automated way of conducting a traditional radio network.

Both devices are given a band of frequencies to operate in. These are actually quite narrow.

Each channel is separated from another one by some difference in frequency.

The faster you send on a radio channel, the higher the bandwidth of the signal. This requires larger frequency spacing. That's all.

You are confusing center carrier frequency with bandwidth.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The data transfer speed isn't just about frequency.

It isn't about frequency at all. It's about bandwidth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Your device, will search through the frequencies, and try to find one that is less used.

Nope. Your phone does NO searching at all. It simply listens on it's assigned command channel. The command channel tells your phone what other frequencies to use. WIFI has no command channel. Your WIFI beacon simply broadcasts on it's assigned frequency (that you set in your settings, most users use the default channel 1). The Americas has two practical channels for WIFI, channel 1 and channel 6. Everywhere else in the world has only one channel. This was agreed upon by the ITU.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Data is transferred in packets, and checked for errors.
Corrupted packets are resent, until they get through, or abandoned (fail).

No. There is NO checking at all! Just blast and hope! The IP protocol has absolute no error checking in it, other than timeouts, to prevent network storms.
The UDP protocol has no error checking in it either. Just blast and hope.

The TCP protocol has sequencing and error checking. That protocol runs on top of IP, and that error checking is done at each end of the TCP conversation (client and server). It is TCP that will detect a missing or damaged package and attempt to resend it. It is much like the old XModem protocol. It's dumb in how it does it, and slow as a result.

A radio can detect loss of carrier. That's just the same as someone unplugging a network cable. The network stack is shut down for that dead link and all TCP connections that were running through are notified via a synthesized packet in their own network stacks. Those links are closed.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Higher frequencies can transfer more data, faster, but are prone to more error packets.

No error packets. No error checking.
Frequency is not bandwidth. I can send data just as rapidly using any frequency of my choice, from 1Khz all the way up to 40Ghz (ignoring interference with other services!).

One of the highest bandwidth signals sent is actually around 100Mhz, in a band known as the TV band (split into two sections on either side of the FM broadcast band). This is more data than either your cell phone or WIFI sees, which operate up in the Ghz range.

Why the high frequency? To make the coverage crappy! This range of frequencies are line of site propagation, designed for very short haul radio traffic. This is true for both cell phones and for WIFI.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You are less likely to see anything, because re-sending them is really fast, don't even notice.

Nope. NO error checking at all.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When you crank up the power, more devices see your usage, and try to find a less used frequency.

WIFI does not search for a frequency. It operates strictly on the frequency you assign the beacon to.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, you are hogging the bandwidth.

Not quite. You are on the same frequency as your neighbor. If the two WIFI beacons are both heard, one will have to wait for the other to shut up before it can transmit it's own packets. (data transmission on WIFI is in bursts).
HarveyH55 wrote:
A few houses in the neighborhood won't be a huge problem, since most people don't really need the speed they pay for anyway.

Japan has ONE frequency for ALL WIFI. Image what it's like getting your WIFI to work in, say, downtown Tokyo! These guys are more gadget happy than we are! Only ONE WIFI channel allocated to all of Asia, according to ITU treaty.

Around here, trying to operate on WIFI in, say, a Best Buy store is a bit of what you might see there. Everything wants to use WIFI! I've already had to handle this sort of electronic jungle. It ain't fun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But, if most of the neighborhood does it, then some people are going to get little use of their WiFi.

Out where you are, you probably will have no problem with interference much. It's possible though.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2022 23:10
keepit
★★★★★
(2560)
Not that i'm an expert in quantum mechanics but i do know a thing or two.
1 - QM is very interesting.
2 - Everything that exists has a number of "cousins" that deviate from the usual. For example, if a person gets shot in the head, according to the many worlds hypothesis, there is another world where the bullet almost enters the person's head but then stops and goes around the head and exits behind the persons head in the exact same place as it would have had it not deviated. There are many other possibilities of this event. This means that if the frequency of the 5g is close to the frequency that would disrupt the airplane, there would be a few deviants that would disrupt the plane even though the main frequency is not a danger. In other words eventually a deviant may bring the plane down.
As an example, there is a story in paramedic circles about 2 paramedics who were called to an attempted suicide by gunshot would to the head. In this case the bullet entered the patient's skull but deviated around the brain and exited on the other side of the head. When the paramedics arrived the patient was sitting in his lawn chair with an entry wound on one side of his head and exit wound on the other side. The patient sat there in his lawn hair and carried on a conversation with the paramedics. It puzzled the paramedics until the patient had a ct scan at the hospital.
VERY UNUSUAL.
23-01-2022 01:49
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1741)
Keepit.I love you but wings make planes fly.A faulty instrument will not magically make a plane stop flying.The pilot will not just go Oh dear my altimeter is wrong I had better stack the plane
23-01-2022 02:23
keepit
★★★★★
(2560)
duncan,
As i understand it, the 5g can disrupt the radar altimeter which tells the pilot how close they are to the ground. A false reading can cause them to run into the ground, a dismal outcome, but admittedly rare.
Edited on 23-01-2022 02:24
23-01-2022 06:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4259)
keepit wrote:
duncan,
As i understand it, the 5g can disrupt the radar altimeter which tells the pilot how close they are to the ground. A false reading can cause them to run into the ground, a dismal outcome, but admittedly rare.


A pilot has other sources of information, system can, and do fail. Flying on instruments only, is risky, but a necessary skill, because of weather conditions. We'd have a lot of grounded flights, if they waited until there were ideal conditions for their location, and the destination. Planes can stay in the air for hours, but weather conditions can change in minutes. Instruments have gotten very good, but a good pilot isn't going to trust them with his life. If it's all you got, it's much better than nothing at all...
23-01-2022 07:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
keepit wrote:
Not that i'm an expert in quantum mechanics but i do know a thing or two.

And now for something completely off topic about a subject you have no idea of.
keepit wrote:
1 - QM is very interesting.
2 - Everything that exists has a number of "cousins" that deviate from the usual. For example, if a person gets shot in the head, according to the many worlds hypothesis, there is another world where the bullet almost enters the person's head but then stops and goes around the head and exits behind the persons head in the exact same place as it would have had it not deviated. There are many other possibilities of this event. This means that if the frequency of the 5g is close to the frequency that would disrupt the airplane, there would be a few deviants that would disrupt the plane even though the main frequency is not a danger. In other words eventually a deviant may bring the plane down.

As an example, there is a story in paramedic circles about 2 paramedics who were called to an attempted suicide by gunshot would to the head. In this case the bullet entered the patient's skull but deviated around the brain and exited on the other side of the head. When the paramedics arrived the patient was sitting in his lawn chair with an entry wound on one side of his head and exit wound on the other side. The patient sat there in his lawn hair and carried on a conversation with the paramedics. It puzzled the paramedics until the patient had a ct scan at the hospital.
VERY UNUSUAL.

Not quantum mechanics. Just a piece of fiction.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 07:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
duncan61 wrote:
Keepit.I love you but wings make planes fly.A faulty instrument will not magically make a plane stop flying.The pilot will not just go Oh dear my altimeter is wrong I had better stack the plane


Indeed. I've had my altimeter fail on me in flight. I just flew the plane, landed at a nearby airport, and diagnosed the problem. Turned out to be water in the air lines.

Airplanes have this thing for the pilots, you see, called windows.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 07:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
keepit wrote:
duncan,
As i understand it, the 5g can disrupt the radar altimeter which tells the pilot how close they are to the ground. A false reading can cause them to run into the ground, a dismal outcome, but admittedly rare.


No. A pilot looks out the window when close to the ground.
There are several sources of altitude on most any airplane.

The most important one? The windows.

Instrument approaches in the U.S. require the use of a sensitive barometric altimeter. Passenger jets have two of them, with independent air lines.

GPS also provide altitude information.

Glideslope also provides altitude approach information.

If you have all altimeters DEAD on an aircraft on instrument flight, you CAN complete the flight. Just follow the radios and use GPS (which contains altitude information).

You can always just look out the windows too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 08:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
duncan,
As i understand it, the 5g can disrupt the radar altimeter which tells the pilot how close they are to the ground. A false reading can cause them to run into the ground, a dismal outcome, but admittedly rare.


A pilot has other sources of information, system can, and do fail. Flying on instruments only, is risky, but a necessary skill, because of weather conditions. We'd have a lot of grounded flights, if they waited until there were ideal conditions for their location, and the destination. Planes can stay in the air for hours, but weather conditions can change in minutes.

Weather is fairly predictable though, for 24 hours out.
Flying on instruments is pretty normal around here in the Pacific Northwest. Low overcast stratus clouds are typical of much of our weather here. It doesn't rain much. It drizzles for about eight months out of the year.

Instrument flying is completely safe. You have to be trained how to do it. I have no problem launching into this clag with my little 150 (which is rigged for instrument flight). Yes, this is the SAME plane that had the altimeter fail in flight. While irritating to deal with, it is possible to complete the flight and even make an instrument approach if glideslope is available and ATC is aware of the compromised panel. There is absolutely no need to stuff the thing into the deck just because an altimeter failed.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Instruments have gotten very good, but a good pilot isn't going to trust them with his life.

That's why instrument pilots always crosscheck the instruments. Sometimes they don't give an obvious indication when one fails.

They always crosscheck the radio beacons too, to make sure they are tuned into the station they think they are tuned into.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If it's all you got, it's much better than nothing at all...


I actually enjoy instrument flying here. It give me a chance to hop in my Cessna and climb up through the clouds to see what the Sun looks like. We don't get to see it often here!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 08:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
duncan61 wrote:
Keepit.I love you but wings make planes fly.


Even helicopters and gyrocopters.

The only thing that doesn't require a wing is a hot air balloon or a blimp.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 08:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
keepit wrote:
duncan,
As i understand it, the 5g can disrupt the radar altimeter which tells the pilot how close they are to the ground. A false reading can cause them to run into the ground, a dismal outcome, but admittedly rare.


5G is a protocol, not a frequency.

It does not disrupt radar altimeters (unless you have a REALLY crappy radar altimeter!
).

5G has been in service in some cities for some time now. Several years.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-01-2022 18:10
keepit
★★★★★
(2560)
itn,
Often wrong. Never in doubt.

Just guessing but maybe you haven't used a radar altimeter. Not much instrument time either.
Edited on 23-01-2022 18:11
23-01-2022 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Often wrong. Never in doubt.

Just guessing but maybe you haven't used a radar altimeter. Not much instrument time either.

I'm just guessing your C-clamp isn't on tight enough.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2022 00:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
keepit wrote:itn, Often wrong. Never in doubt.

keepit, never a point.

Just guessing you have never learned what 5G is. Not much learning time at all.
24-01-2022 00:06
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1741)
Keepit.I disagree with ITN on a number of things like where coal comes from but the dude has a pilots licence and his own lightweight.Credit where credit is due a lot of remote cattle station managers have a pilots and their own plane.I have a Jeep cherokee and a licence to drive it.I am sure that mk1 spitfires had altimeters and no radar.Later planes like Lancaster bombers had radar but not for landing.Tune us in ITN
24-01-2022 00:17
keepit
★★★★★
(2560)
ibd,
I usually try to have a point. It's just that you often miss the point.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 5G:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact