EMF Exposure

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
plutronus said:
600mV is a fairly small voltage, and 40 mV ~ 60 mV is so small (its the 'noise-floor' in most consumer gadgets), that I suspect that its either an instrumentation alias or its an AC field that inductively coupled into (likely) long leads of the measuring instrument, in other words, its not really there. So how did you see those readings?

plutronus
ET Investigator
Sorry you don't have any credibility.
 

Divide by Zero

The Living Force
hlat said:
plutronus said:
600mV is a fairly small voltage, and 40 mV ~ 60 mV is so small (its the 'noise-floor' in most consumer gadgets), that I suspect that its either an instrumentation alias or its an AC field that inductively coupled into (likely) long leads of the measuring instrument, in other words, its not really there. So how did you see those readings?

plutronus
ET Investigator
Sorry you don't have any credibility.
Hlat, with all due respect... stating credibility is not what will bring the truth out. It kind of irked me, feeling like character assassination. It reminded me of what my friend told me when I was telling him that Ukraine is hiding info regarding MH17, he just said I have no credibility, despite me stating obvious issues (records seized, no satellite photos to prove Russia did it, etc). Just saying I have no credibility and standing hard on that, he won the argument. People around the table ignored the questions that I brought up. I think when people stick to the "credibility" instead of the data, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and choosing to follow authority. Authority in some cases can be labeled by "picking" who is credible or not, which happened in my MH17 case. I chose not to debate him anymore, because those people believed him over me, they knew him longer than me, he was Russian (I am not), and he sounded more sure - and had the mass media he quoted on his side.

So, this feeling of that experience is what I picked up with your statement.

But, on this forum, this is not a battle of credibility, but to find the truth, or try to approach what is most probable.

Why not point out the issues, or say, I don't think you are right? You can even say "I'm not sure about what you are saying".
I'm sure LQB or others who know a lot about this can chime in and explain whether his reasoning was invalid or not.

He does make valid points and I can say this because I work in the electrical field. 600mV is 0.6 volts. Out of 120 V, that is 0.5% of the RMS of the AC wave. The contacts themselves could have a tiny resistance or induction that affects measured voltage. Or, the wiring which might have other loads in the circuit could be having these microscopic voltage drops. In AC power, if there is inductance or capacitance, the current used during the wave is not as smooth as the sine wave, causing ripples.

However, I am not the one that did the tests, and do not know how frequencies work and whether there is some kind of resonant frequency that could make some these small voltage waves into strong energies that are absorbed by the body, etc.
 

trendsetter37

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
hlat said:
Sorry you don't have any credibility
I would have to agree with Divide by Zero here hlat. One thing to keep in mind if you dissagree with someone is to make sure you have a valid point or reason for doing so. Otherwise ad hominem or irrelevant attacks against someone seems like a low blow to me.


For example

How to Disagree

_http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

...Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored...
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a ***!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a ***."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone...

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements...

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it...
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.
In all I think your comment hlat was around the DH1 level which offered nothing to the current line of thought. Should we not typically shoot for a disagreement level of DH4 and above here on the forum? And not just because it is probably the right thing to do but also out of respect for others?
 

Divide by Zero

The Living Force
Thanks Trendsetter37 for that refresher.

I confess, I too first used the same ad-hominem approach back:
I originally wrote asking Hlat what credibility he had in determining another's credibility.
But, that was not helpful and a stupid emotional reaction of mine, to fight fire with fire, so to say.

Sometimes it is necessary to deal with authoritarians and follower types, but here it is a disservice.
So I edited it out, because it contradicted the rest of the message and does not help!
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Let's take a brief look at what this person has written in the previous page.

plutronus said:
cheap Oriental AC inverters that do.
plutronus said:
Unfortunately, if yar really worried, then I suggest ya pack up and move to Alaska, out into the woods. Built yourself a log-cabin, outfit it with oil-laterns, and put out into the shed your AC generator to power those things ya gotta have, and keep all the rest of the wires away from ya.
plutronus said:
In any case, turning off the signal, interfering with the signal, or blocking the signal, will eventually elicit a service technician visit to determine the cause of no signal. Your house or in the case above, somebody else's house, hah hah.. Then the nasty letters arrive, and then the court summons (maybe a Sheriff or two with the summons etc). Generally the FCC doesn't throw people in jail, they fine'm. Its always about the money. Is it worth it?

(But if you wanna be slick, decode the encryption, decypher the telemetry values and then transmit a clone signal with your own values, but I suspect that'll be illegal also, if not already?)
Then I combine that with what a previous trusted and credible member has said, and I take note of the disagreement.

LQB said:
plutronus said:
Good quality properly designed AC inverter power-modules don't leak multi-spectral power-density noise into AC power-mains, so its somewhat unlikely that a GSA supplied public school would likely use cheap Oriental AC inverters that do.
Not true. Even the more expensive "pure sine wave" inverters are very noisy compared to the generator/motors at the power plant. And this high frequency noise is easily measured. Only the analog motor/generators are truly pure sine wave - the solid state inverters are only approximate sine wave, and this results in high frequency noise that couples into any grid connected to it.
I'm sure many of us took the time to read every post in this thread. So then I see a question like this, when the answer had been given in the thread, and I wonder if this person is just a troll.

plutronus said:
How did you make those measurements? What tool did you use?
Then the poster says something like this, who I would never consider listening to but perhaps someone else reading would.

plutronus said:
Follow these tips at your own risk. AC can kill you or someone else if you screw-up.
So I say the poster has no credibility. But this post with the quotes is a much better explanation of what I had been thinking. I thank the both of you for challenging me to try to be better.

One of the great problems we face is weeding out disinformation and the trolls that seek to sap our energy and misdirect us. One of the ways I try to conserve my energy from such attacks is taking note of warning signs that emerge from someone I don't know. I don't know plutronus, but multiple flags go up right away. So when the poster wrote about things that can kill if someone who was less wary and careful decided to try without proper precautions, then I decided I do not want to dedicate any time or energy to that person.

I don't have anything substantive to disagree with the person, because my knowledge is low in this subject matter. However, my knowledge in other areas is telling me not to listen to this person.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
hlat said:
...
Then the poster says something like this, who I would never consider listening to but perhaps someone else reading would.

plutronus said:
Follow these tips at your own risk. AC can kill you or someone else if you screw-up.
So I say the poster has no credibility. But this post with the quotes is a much better explanation of what I had been thinking. I thank the both of you for challenging me to try to be better.

One of the great problems we face is weeding out disinformation and the trolls that seek to sap our energy and misdirect us. One of the ways I try to conserve my energy from such attacks is taking note of warning signs that emerge from someone I don't know. I don't know plutronus, but multiple flags go up right away. So when the poster wrote about things that can kill if someone who was less wary and careful decided to try without proper precautions, then I decided I do not want to dedicate any time or energy to that person.

I don't have anything substantive to disagree with the person, because my knowledge is low in this subject matter. However, my knowledge in other areas is telling me not to listen to this person.
Hlat, this makes no sense. If your knowledge is "low in this subject matter" how can you determine if someone is credible on that subject or not? And, from what I've heard (and my knowledge of this stuff is not that high either) messing with your house's wiring is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. So that, to me, indicates some knowledge, credibility, and experience. As does the warnings about the accuracy of the various measurement tools. And the law of inverse square of distance, etc. So then you, without enough knowledge of the subject, just say, "you have no credibility." And nothing else. And then even when you elaborate, I still have trouble understanding why you thought what this person was saying was not worth listening to, regardless of any warning signs of trollness you felt. It's almost like you're talking to yourself here.
 

mb

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Mr. Premise said:
...Hlat, this makes no sense. If your knowledge is "low in this subject matter" how can you determine if someone is credible on that subject or not? And, from what I've heard (and my knowledge of this stuff is not that high either) messing with your house's wiring is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. So that, to me, indicates some knowledge, credibility, and experience. As does the warnings about the accuracy of the various measurement tools. And the law of inverse square of distance, etc. So then you, without enough knowledge of the subject, just say, "you have no credibility." And nothing else. And then even when you elaborate, I still have trouble understanding why you thought what this person was saying was not worth listening to, regardless of any warning signs of trollness you felt. It's almost like you're talking to yourself here.
It kind of makes sense to me. Sometimes the only way I have of detecting a problem with an information source, initially, is a feeling that "something isn't quite right." I also have had that feeling with plutronus. I have noted specific errors with regard to plutronus' replying to messages (mine and hlat's) apparently without reading them carefully or without reading earlier related posts.

While I am not an engineer, I am an experienced electronics technician and I do understand what is being discussed at a technical level. Hlat's comments about voltage readings were with reference to the Greenwave EMI meter, which uses a voltage-based scale in preference to GS units. The quantity measured is EMI (electromagnetic interference) and 600 mv is high. Nobody really knows if there is a "safe" level for these readings other than zero, but Greenwave states a "rule of thumb" goal of 75 mv or an 80% reduction. It's better than nothing. The concern is not so much that this noise is present on the power lines as that the power lines act as antennae and broadcast the noise through the air and, potentially affecting living cells and organisms. I have no way of measuring the EMI broadcast signal strength, but I see evidence that it is there (as I described earlier).

Plutronus' remarks about my Trifield meter not being sensitive to smart meter output were based upon "as I recall." I didn't try to recall, but rather I re-checked the spectrum allocations for smart meters (as best I could) and compared that with the specs for the Trifield, and they aligned well, as I expected from my observations from using the meter. That requires considerably more time to do than throwing out an offhand "as I recall" to tell someone you think they are wrong.

So I'm a little annoyed, but not very, and the errors I have noticed are not terribly significant. I did not go over every last line, though, looking for mistakes; nor am I going to.
 

Divide by Zero

The Living Force
Mr. Premise said:
hlat said:
...
Then the poster says something like this, who I would never consider listening to but perhaps someone else reading would.

plutronus said:
Follow these tips at your own risk. AC can kill you or someone else if you screw-up.
So I say the poster has no credibility. But this post with the quotes is a much better explanation of what I had been thinking. I thank the both of you for challenging me to try to be better.

One of the great problems we face is weeding out disinformation and the trolls that seek to sap our energy and misdirect us. One of the ways I try to conserve my energy from such attacks is taking note of warning signs that emerge from someone I don't know. I don't know plutronus, but multiple flags go up right away. So when the poster wrote about things that can kill if someone who was less wary and careful decided to try without proper precautions, then I decided I do not want to dedicate any time or energy to that person.

I don't have anything substantive to disagree with the person, because my knowledge is low in this subject matter. However, my knowledge in other areas is telling me not to listen to this person.
Hlat, this makes no sense. If your knowledge is "low in this subject matter" how can you determine if someone is credible on that subject or not? And, from what I've heard (and my knowledge of this stuff is not that high either) messing with your house's wiring is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. So that, to me, indicates some knowledge, credibility, and experience. As does the warnings about the accuracy of the various measurement tools. And the law of inverse square of distance, etc. So then you, without enough knowledge of the subject, just say, "you have no credibility." And nothing else. And then even when you elaborate, I still have trouble understanding why you thought what this person was saying was not worth listening to, regardless of any warning signs of trollness you felt. It's almost like you're talking to yourself here.
I too had a feeling, but that could have been my bias against ET investigating. Plutronus could explain better if you had any doubts or questions. But, pointing out that warning as something bad is weird. I work with industrial equipment (some at high voltage) and ironically most of my close calls were actually doing house work, due to things being unlabeled or packed too tight into old boxes to work with safely. 120 volts can be as dangerous as 12kv in terms of arc flash.

Maybe you were thinking he was trying to push you away from fixing this issue you found? I guess I don't understand because I don't feel that extreme warning that you have, knowing that warning was actually valid.


MB said:
It kind of makes sense to me. Sometimes the only way I have of detecting a problem with an information source, initially, is a feeling that "something isn't quite right." I also have had that feeling with plutronus. I have noted specific errors with regard to plutronus' replying to messages (mine and hlat's) apparently without reading them carefully or without reading earlier related posts.

While I am not an engineer, I am an experienced electronics technician and I do understand what is being discussed at a technical level. Hlat's comments about voltage readings were with reference to the Greenwave EMI meter, which uses a voltage-based scale in preference to GS units. The quantity measured is EMI (electromagnetic interference) and 600 mv is high. Nobody really knows if there is a "safe" level for these readings other than zero, but Greenwave states a "rule of thumb" goal of 75 mv or an 80% reduction. It's better than nothing. The concern is not so much that this noise is present on the power lines as that the power lines act as antennae and broadcast the noise through the air and, potentially affecting living cells and organisms. I have no way of measuring the EMI broadcast signal strength, but I see evidence that it is there (as I described earlier).
<SNIP>

Sorry if it's been answered before, I can't seem to find it in this thread but I know that 600mv is high to some electronics, but in terms of producing EMI that can harm us, was it greenwave that determined this or someone else?

Like you having a feeling about information sources, sometimes these electronics and computer manufacturers make up their own standards.

I do agree that grounding is important, as devices themselves can conduct stray voltage (and which is why the electrical code made GFI's mandatory in areas that are wet). It's the small voltage ripples that are 0.5% of the total that make me confused.
There is a site that explains how voltage relates to transmission, but I don't know how to apply that formula without a coefficient of how the house wiring would transmit that ripple.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/definitions/vswr.php
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
plutronus said:
cheap Oriental AC inverters that do.
This choice of words, Oriental instead of Asian, indicates possible maliciousness such as racism. It definitely indicates ignorance, so either way it is not a good sign.

plutronus said:
Unfortunately, if yar really worried, then I suggest ya pack up and move to Alaska, out into the woods. Built yourself a log-cabin, outfit it with oil-laterns, and put out into the shed your AC generator to power those things ya gotta have, and keep all the rest of the wires away from ya.
This is a "Responding to Tone" type of sign. MB had a serious concern, and this person comes along and says move out to the Alaskan woods. This suggests to me that the poster is not taking MB seriously. I take MB seriously. I wonder why I should take the poster seriously.

plutronus said:
In any case, turning off the signal, interfering with the signal, or blocking the signal, will eventually elicit a service technician visit to determine the cause of no signal. Your house or in the case above, somebody else's house, hah hah.. Then the nasty letters arrive, and then the court summons (maybe a Sheriff or two with the summons etc). Generally the FCC doesn't throw people in jail, they fine'm. Its always about the money. Is it worth it?

(But if you wanna be slick, decode the encryption, decypher the telemetry values and then transmit a clone signal with your own values, but I suspect that'll be illegal also, if not already?)
The poster describes in noticeable detail a couple different activities that the poster deems illegal. This is a sign of insincerity to me. Why would someone describe several illegal activities, and then add the cavaet of don't do it? It is a sign of trouble-making rather than helpfulness.

LQB said:
plutronus said:
Good quality properly designed AC inverter power-modules don't leak multi-spectral power-density noise into AC power-mains, so its somewhat unlikely that a GSA supplied public school would likely use cheap Oriental AC inverters that do.
Not true. Even the more expensive "pure sine wave" inverters are very noisy compared to the generator/motors at the power plant. And this high frequency noise is easily measured. Only the analog motor/generators are truly pure sine wave - the solid state inverters are only approximate sine wave, and this results in high frequency noise that couples into any grid connected to it.
I think LQB is highly credible. I see that LQB disagreed with the poster.

plutronus said:
Follow these tips at your own risk. AC can kill you or someone else if you screw-up.
Here, I just don't want anyone else reading this to get any ideas of doing any of things the poster described.

plutronus said:
How did you make those measurements? What tool did you use?
The other members were having a discussion with one another, and then this poster drops in, responds to some older posts (eg sirius) but apparently did not pay attention to newer posts. When the poster did not notice that I used a Greenwave meter (Greenwave Broadband EMI Meter), it made me suspect that the poster has not paid attention and greatly increased the likelihood that the poster has not made a good analysis.

Mr. Premise said:
If your knowledge is "low in this subject matter" how can you determine if someone is credible on that subject or not?
...
I still have trouble understanding why you thought what this person was saying was not worth listening to, regardless of any warning signs of trollness you felt.
I often encounter people who try to make themselves sound intelligent and convincing when in reality they are intentionally advancing incorrect arguments. Inconsistencies are signs, and the other signs I described, that all go to the credibility of the speaker/writer. I may not know in depth what they are taking about, but I may notice other things about them that cast doubt in my mind of their intentions, sincerity, and knowledge. I do not pretend I am the smartest person in a room, so that other people will know more than me in many areas, and yet I still have to make an assessment whether it is useful or detrimental to spend my time and energy interacting with them. An effective deceiver will wrap truths around a lie, so it may be useful to detect deceivers and avoid them instead of engaging in the exercise of trying to separate their lies from the truth.

In this particular example, more than half of this new poster's posts are in this thread (an inconsistency for the majority of ET Investigator's posts to be in EM thread, perhaps"Name-calling" or "Ad Hominem" but still an inconsistency), and taken together with the above warning signs, portray a dismal picture of the poster's intentions and knowledge. Not one of the signs by itself would mean much of anything, and I put the signs together which results in a message for me that the poster is untrustworthy. I have not disregarded the warning signs that I've noticed so I do not put them aside to think "regardless" of them. The time and energy I am expending now is to try to help other members understand why I quickly thought the poster is not credible.
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Divide By Zero said:
Why not point out the issues, or say, I don't think you are right? You can even say "I'm not sure about what you are saying".
I'm sure LQB or others who know a lot about this can chime in and explain whether his reasoning was invalid or not.

He does make valid points and I can say this because I work in the electrical field. 600mV is 0.6 volts. Out of 120 V, that is 0.5% of the RMS of the AC wave. The contacts themselves could have a tiny resistance or induction that affects measured voltage. Or, the wiring which might have other loads in the circuit could be having these microscopic voltage drops. In AC power, if there is inductance or capacitance, the current used during the wave is not as smooth as the sine wave, causing ripples.

However, I am not the one that did the tests, and do not know how frequencies work and whether there is some kind of resonant frequency that could make some these small voltage waves into strong energies that are absorbed by the body, etc.
The issue is not so much the amplitude (as a measure of danger) but the frequency. The high frequency noise components (greater than about 2Khz) begin to penetrate the flesh via capacitive coupling to the body. When this happens you get interference with cellular metabolic function. The Stetzer and Greenwave meters attempt to measure the power in the high frequency noise spectrum, and their reading in mv is a unit of convenience (rather than a direct voltage measurement). Since these meters measure only the high frequency noise (above 2KHz), they give a direct relative measure of the harmful noise - and a reading of 600 is quite high (the Stetzer meter pegs at 2000).

Prof Denis Henshaw (Univ of Bristol - Emeritus - Retired) makes a convincing argument that this noise, when imposed on the magnetic field, is far more dangerous (partly due to penetration) and responsible for certain cancers (childhood leukemia, brain cancers, etc) at elevated rates (I'll add aggravated blood sugar/insulin resistance). This means that a home that has a wiring error (such as crossed ground/neutrals) and high grid noise - is particularly dangerous [see earlier posts in this thread.]

So to say that 600mv is harmless by comparison with the 120V main is to entirely misunderstand the mechanism of damage.
 

shijing

The Living Force
voyageur said:
Seems like an interesting video and then noticed this from one of the smart meter groups:

email said:
This youtube is making the rounds, offering people an idea about shielding the $meter which in fact could make things worse.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CwzeMOH-Jl4

According to an electrical engineer, putting such a cover on a smeter could cause it to overheat, which is a serious problem already, as you know. Such a shielding as well will prevent signals from going out or being received which could result in the meter increasing its power as well as Hydro getting an error message, believing the meter is being tampered with. As better shielding is aluminum screening, like that used for windows. The signal can still get through, but it will be weakened, and air can pass through to the $meter.
I'm not so sure about the overheating aspect, and if so, that is another reason these meters are dangerous in the first place.
Thanks for the information, voyageur, and sorry for the late reply. I was originally concerned about reflecting the radiation back into my neighbor's house (they didn't seem to care, but I thought it would be bad karma), which is why I asked permission to only try it for a week. I wasn't aware of the potential overheating problem, so that would be another reason not to use this kind of shield as a long-term solution. I bought a couple sheets of aluminum screening last week, and am planning to experiment with that soon, primarily in my bedroom.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Shijing said:
voyageur said:
Seems like an interesting video and then noticed this from one of the smart meter groups:

email said:
This youtube is making the rounds, offering people an idea about shielding the $meter which in fact could make things worse.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CwzeMOH-Jl4

According to an electrical engineer, putting such a cover on a smeter could cause it to overheat, which is a serious problem already, as you know. Such a shielding as well will prevent signals from going out or being received which could result in the meter increasing its power as well as Hydro getting an error message, believing the meter is being tampered with. As better shielding is aluminum screening, like that used for windows. The signal can still get through, but it will be weakened, and air can pass through to the $meter.
I'm not so sure about the overheating aspect, and if so, that is another reason these meters are dangerous in the first place.
Thanks for the information, voyageur, and sorry for the late reply. I was originally concerned about reflecting the radiation back into my neighbor's house (they didn't seem to care, but I thought it would be bad karma), which is why I asked permission to only try it for a week. I wasn't aware of the potential overheating problem, so that would be another reason not to use this kind of shield as a long-term solution. I bought a couple sheets of aluminum screening last week, and am planning to experiment with that soon, primarily in my bedroom.
Figured I would just add the comment, yet I'm still not positive about the "overheating" issue, this seems to be just what one electrical engineer said - need to assess more data. Looking forward to the results of your experiment with the screening.
 

mb

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
voyageur said:
Figured I would just add the comment, yet I'm still not positive about the "overheating" issue, this seems to be just what one electrical engineer said - need to assess more data. Looking forward to the results of your experiment with the screening.
A bigger concern might be that tampering with smart meters (or dumb ones, for that matter) can be illegal, although local laws vary. Adding shielding so that the signal doesn't pass through your home, especially if it is done on the inside, is not going to raise any alarms, I don't think, but I would suggest not doing anything that directly interferes with the device's operation.
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
MB said:
voyageur said:
Figured I would just add the comment, yet I'm still not positive about the "overheating" issue, this seems to be just what one electrical engineer said - need to assess more data. Looking forward to the results of your experiment with the screening.
A bigger concern might be that tampering with smart meters (or dumb ones, for that matter) can be illegal, although local laws vary. Adding shielding so that the signal doesn't pass through your home, especially if it is done on the inside, is not going to raise any alarms, I don't think, but I would suggest not doing anything that directly interferes with the device's operation.
I agree with MB here - your best approach is to install a ground plane (as simple as alum foil or metal screen) behind the meter. If you attempt to block the radiation to the exterior, you will likely increase the back-radiation into the home.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
LQB said:
MB said:
voyageur said:
Figured I would just add the comment, yet I'm still not positive about the "overheating" issue, this seems to be just what one electrical engineer said - need to assess more data. Looking forward to the results of your experiment with the screening.
A bigger concern might be that tampering with smart meters (or dumb ones, for that matter) can be illegal, although local laws vary. Adding shielding so that the signal doesn't pass through your home, especially if it is done on the inside, is not going to raise any alarms, I don't think, but I would suggest not doing anything that directly interferes with the device's operation.
I agree with MB here - your best approach is to install a ground plane (as simple as alum foil or metal screen) behind the meter. If you attempt to block the radiation to the exterior, you will likely increase the back-radiation into the home.
Ok, makes sense. Any blockage results in radiation taking the path of least resistance.
 
Top Bottom