Select your response
36 VOTES ALLOW MULTIPLE SELECTIONS
TOP 14 Comments
- SAP ImposterXmoreIf you forgo any of these horrible vaccinations, you’ll have done the needful!
- SAS UrkmonatNone of the above? I care about better reliability and higher bandwidth caps on 4G/LTE much more than additional speed. And the disruption to weather prediction just makes 5G seem like a massive blunder of investment. Only potential positive side I see is improvements to the data backbone to prepare for it, but you’ll get those benefits on 4G/LTE as well
- I look at it from a telecom perspective. There is no zero sum benefit for 5G. It like we need a hell of a lot more towers for it to work and therefore you need to be in the city. I think it's a waste and I do happen to belive that there are unknown negative side effects...
- What are you talking about? You mention health and conspiracy, is there a premise here that you want to give background on? I have heard of the benefit of more speed, what other differences are anticipated?
- Research 5G and related to Oxygen molecule. The Dangers of 5G is already settled science. There are 10s of thousands of published papers illustrating the effects of sending up to 80 billions of em pulses through your body per second. ATP of all things is also negatively impacted. You would do well to not take my word for it but seek out the truth for your own edification.
- 4G has transmits on average of no more than 1Gigahert (average because so many people are on that same network with you and you have to share) but it can go up to about 4 or 6 depending on ideal conditions. 5G runs any where from 5Gigaherts to 80 Gigahertz
According to my research and to my personal experience with developing RF circuits that exceeded 1Gb/s and operated between 1-10GBs (1-10GHz). The development cost was not additive instead it was exponential. For a 5 inch circuit it might cost upwards of $1000 if we wanted to run signals into the 5G bands because the materials that we used for anything below would start causing what we call electro magnetic interference on the circuit traces. Things like cross-talk, signal reflections, etc. Would occur. So what we had to do was purchase more expensive materials that had higher EV strength. These things obviously cost more because they greatly reduced electromagnetic interference on the transmission line.
I mention this because, our bodies arent so good at leaving electromagnetic signals alone in the same way that an expensive rf circuit board leaves them alone. I say this because when you research the dielectric constant of a human body (the electrical permeability) relative to an expensive RF circuit, we are like chicken vs a circuit being like a rock. We absorb the signals. Good RF circuits dont absorb the signal in the materials. Bad RF circuits do. I say this because everything that is misused breaks down overtime. I apologize because I will have to extrapolate this to the human body. Overtime when you think of your human body as a dielectric that interferences with an electromagnetic signal, your body is going to absorb it and overtime I dont think it's good for your human body because overtime our devices broke down even when we sent Lower signals through them. One thing non-hardware engineers fail to understand is that, hardware has a life span.... so does your body but, what do I know, I'm just an electrical engineer.