[ltp] Re: Linux-Thinkpad digest, Vol 1 #632 - 27 msgs

[morpheus]

I think we're getting way off topic here....

Well, since my memory is obviously faulty, and since you all seem to
care so much about this particular point, I dug up the actual report. 
Here's what it said:

"To keep the number of tests within practical limits, only interference
frequencies of 412MHz (Tetra), 940MHz (GSM) and 1719MHz were used, each
with a maximum field strength of 50 volts/metre.  The tests for
simultaneous exposure to 940 and 1719MHz were performed with maximum
combined field strength up to 35 volts/meter due to test equipment
limitations."

Does this make sense to all you experts out there?  Am I finally off the
hook for my tragic "amps" error?

-m

On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 18:30, Eben King wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, James Knott wrote:
> 
> > morpheus wrote:
> > > As I said, I'm a pilot, not an RF engineer.  As I recall, though, the
> > > report used a particular model of Nokia phone and noted that at maximum
> > > output it drew 4 amps of current, so that's the number that stuck in my
> > > head.  Thanks for pointing out my mistaken use of a unit of measure,
> > > however, it is incidental to the main point that the CAA did a
> > > controlled study with cellphones at maximum output on a real airplane
> > > and found no danger, except when the avionics installed are pre-1970s
> > > equipment.
> > 
> > I still don't know where you got that number from.  Hand held cell 
> > phones are limited by law, to about 600 mW average power.
> 
> Not to mention that a cell phone would get very hot, probably burn out
> something, and the battery wouldn't last very long (probably >15 minutes)
> at 4 amps.
> 
> -- 
> -eben    ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm    home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
> 
>       Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be 
>     adequately explained by stupidity."  Derived from Robert Heinlein