EMF Exposure

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
hlat said:
Were you able to turn off the wireless? The http address should be printed on the modem itself.

Yeah I was able to get into the modem's IP. But it was weird, there was no real way to turn it off. They said they had turned off from their end when I called. I put it into bridge mode too.

But my new modem actually arrived yesterday, when it was stated to arrive next week. So I only had to deal with the wifi for three days, one of which with the shielding. Even so, I could definitely still feel it a bit, so it's good to know a simple foil box helps. My head feels better. :) I sit near a wifi router at work, and there are a few others throughout the building. I wear silk pajamas underneath my clothes, but I get a headache after a while. So the old wifi modem has me a bit more aware of wifi's effects.
 

doublea1535

Jedi Council Member
3D Student said:
Yeah I was able to get into the modem's IP. But it was weird, there was no real way to turn it off. They said they had turned off from their end when I called. I put it into bridge mode too.

More shady business practices on the part of large companies:

_http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/technology/security/comcast-wifi-hotspot/index.html

Basically Comcast is choosing to opt-in every one of their subscribers to participate in their large-scale wifi network roll-out so they have another feature to tout, and so more people see their name (when trying to connect to wifi). You can only connect to that wifi network if you are an active subscriber, and Comcast states it won't affect your bandwidth speed, but that's not a guarantee. It's possible that the speed your modem syncs up at is high enough to accommodate both your purchased speeds and whomever happens to be using your network; mileage will vary. Not to mention cable is a shared resource, you share a pipe to their head-end with everyone in your surrounding area.

In effect Comcast customers get the privilege of paying not only their own internet bill to provide wireless internet to other people, but also any additional power draw those people use too.

Like you mentioned 3D, supposedly you can call into their tech support and they will disable it, but exactly what they are disabling (or if they really do) is not clear. From what you said, the radio was still on, so perhaps they just stopped broadcasting their special wifi network (SSID). Not sure, lots of ways they could do it.

As an aside, the part about them having to disable it remotely is accurate, and is how many of the features under the hood are controlled. They could let you disable it locally, but then the problem is you might. :rolleyes:
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Had a listen to one of the latest radio interviews with Dr. Barrie Trower on a show called the Lost Arts Radio Show (I'm not acquainted with this radio show so have not left live links).

Barrie comes in @ the 6:45 – 1:00:00 Section 1 and then @ 1:05:42 – 2:04:00 Section 2

_http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lostartsradio/2015/04/05/lost-arts-radio-show-13--special-guest-dr-barrie-trower

For people familiar with Trower, there are many reoccurring themes, yet many new items described in the particular way he does.

Here is a quote from that website radio show:

The Truth About Wi-Fi, Cell Phones and Smart Meters

Microwave Expert Barrie Trower - Microwave Weapons and Technology

Barrie Trower is a former Royal Navy microwave weapons expert and former cold-war captured spy debriefer for the UK Intelligence Services. Mr. Trower is a whistle-blower, who lectures around the world on hidden dangers from microwave weapons and every-day microwave technologies such as mobile phones and Wi-Fi. Mr. Trower has also repeatedly assisted the UK Police Federation in their struggle to protect police officers from Tetra/Air-Band radio-communications systems that are harmful to health.

This Saturday, Lost Arts Radio listeners have the rare privilege to listen in (and join in if time allows) on an impromptu conversation with microwave technologies and weapons expert Mr. Barrie Trower, on the dangers of wi-fi, smart meters, cell phones and other microwave devices and what you can do to protect yourself. Industries wanting to maximize their profits even at the expense of your health, and governments with their own agendas are not reliable sources of information on these subjects for obvious reasons, as well as some that may not be so obvious. Remember to mark this Saturday, April 4th at 6pm Pacific/9pm Eastern for a show that promises to be jam-packed with useful information you will not hear anywhere else.
Lost Arts Radio invites you to join us for our free health-related educational broadcasts every week. We want to acknowledge and understand the threats we face, while keeping our energy strong, and then come together with positive solutions that can work for you.

During the show Barrie makes reference to a number of his papers, which are available to download on a site called OYM Radio _http://www.oymradio.com/barry-trower.html as follows:

Reports:

1) Tetra June - 2009 (PDF 6.9MB)
2) Tetra (PDF 181KB)
3) The Pandora Project - MK Ultra (PDF 1.2MB)
4) Dangerous EMF Radiation (PDF 9.1MB)
5) WiFi - A Thalidomide In The Making, Who Cares? (PDF 1MB)

I've not had a listen yet, however, Trower's spoke again (think yesterday) on the same radio program in Part 2 - _http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lostartsradio/2015/04/19/lost-arts-radio-show-15--special-guest-barrie-trower-part-2

As an aside, received in a news letter from our local anti-smartmeter coalition a link to a power point presentation that is very comprehensive (140 slides), delivered in BC, Canada by Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Here is the link to his EM Age Sleeping Giant http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/EM%20Age%20Sleeping%20Giant.pdf
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
After reading the latest post on SOTT in the EMF series (http://www.sott.net/article/296453-EMF-Pollution-Man-Made-EMF-Dirty-Power-and-AC-magnetic-fields), I finally decided to dig in to all this stuff. I read Milham's book Dirty Electricity. I will be the first to admit that the electrosmog we live in these days is probably not good for us.

But, I see several issues with the proposed solution: Graham-Stetzer or Greenwave filters.

First, the pricing is outrageous. I can build a capacitor filter for about $1. GS and GW filters sell for between $27 and $35. That's insane, especially since they are obviously mass-produced. The meters are $100-$200 (which is far more reasonable).

Well, more importantly, do the filters work?

Now that I have finally been digging in to this question, I'm actually dumbfounded.

The designers of the GS and GW filters either have a Tesla-like understanding of electrical engineering that totally escapes me, or they have no understanding of even basic circuit analysis at all.

When I first looked at the schematic for a GS/GW-type filter, I said, "Um, that won't work..."

After thinking about it, I decided to see what other people said. Here's one guy who makes some good points:

http://www.emfrelief.com/capacitive-filters.html (note the noise filter schematic for a switching power supply)

Then I thought, "Well, I'd like to analyze one of these filters myself." It was then I found an existing analysis done by Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada (PDF attached). Their analysis is exactly what I would have done, it is fairly sound as far as I can see, and I have to agree with many (but not all) of their hypotheses and conclusions.

In one part of their experiment, they found that the GS Microsurge reading (withOUT a GS filter) actually dropped when a CRT computer monitor was turned on (the dirty power reading was HIGHER when it was OFF).

Another interesting bit:

The foremost observation from these measurements is that the current drawn from the electricity supply by the Stetzer filter appears to be heavily distorted. It possesses harmonic frequencies well in excess of 10 kHz, which would otherwise not exist if it weren’t for the filter. These currents add (in a vector fashion) to the load currents drawn by the appliances in a house and are a significant source of “dirty electricity” in their own right.

This is exactly what I would expect to happen.

In short, the use of GS and GW filters will generally add noise on the lines. This should naturally depend on what devices are attached, whether they are running or not, and in what combination. But, as far as I can tell, the GS and GW filters themselves do not filter dirty electricity in the simplistic way claimed.

If there is any noticeable reduction in the dV/dt (change in Voltage over change in time) apparently measured by the GS Microsurge meter, then it seems it might be because the capacitive filter is "converting" the noisy voltage into noisy current (which the GS web site honestly says will happen). This presents its own problems, however, because current doesn't flow in a vacuum (figuratively speaking)!

It doesn't help that after Health Canada's report was published, a rebuttal was made by one Magda Havas. This report was linked by the GS web site people, ostensibly in defence of their product. That's rather unfortunate, for a few reasons.

First, Magda Havas apparently has a BS in biology and a PhD in botany. She is supposedly an expert on the effect of EMF on living organisms, and she appears to be involved in "healing energies" and that kind of thing. Well, fair enough. Maybe she's on to something! But she doesn't do the GS/GW people any favors with her rebuttal (see attached PDF). For example, she claims:

The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4 to 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000 cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below this range falls off rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document cited by Health Canada.

So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to 5 kHz? There was an overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of the filters. Clearly inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no claims as to whether or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters properly. This alone makes the entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters to reduce dirty electricity in the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).

Going back to Health Canada's report, the answers to her questions are plainly obvious:

The effect of the Stetzer filter on the so-called “high frequencies” extending from 4 kHz to 100 kHz could not be evaluated in this circumstance because, for both cases, they were below the noise floor of the instrument used in this set-up. This was apparent when the line voltage signal was removed, the displayed high frequencies did not drop in amplitude (from the level of Cursor 2). (For this measurement the instrument display was set to
“peak-hold” so that the peaks of high frequencies would be captured.) This illustrates that even without a Stetzer filter, the high frequency components of the line voltage were at least 63.6 dB below the amplitude of the fundamental at this location in the electricity supply. This translates to a factor of 1500 times lower than the fundamental in terms of voltage. (Note that this observation was valid for frequencies to 100 kHz although in Figures 2 and 3, only those up to 5 kHz are displayed.)

Havas also remarks:

The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health Canada made no attempt to separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a ubiquitous filter and thus had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the overlap between the instrumentation and the filter’s effective range.

What she says there makes absolutely no sense to me. Included in the Health Canada report are frequency spectrum screen captures from the Tektronix oscilloscope used. The whole point of a frequency spectrum analysis is that it shows the different frequencies present in the signal. Thus, 60Hz is "separated" from the other frequencies present, and the reason for the limited frequency range Health Canada used is clearly explained above. The reduced frequency range also allows us to better see the spectrum of frequencies that ARE prominent, naturally.

In other words, the GS people used an "EMF Expert" with a "PhD" after her name to defend themselves on their web site, and in my opinion she did a bad job of it. It seems she didn't even read the Health Canada report thoroughly!

As an expert (which she claims to be), she has a responsibility to make sure her statements are accurate. Inaccurate statements or rebuttals that are clearly and easily shot down (as I seem to have done) do the dirty electricity movement no favors whatsoever. It's already an uphill battle as it is with the way mainstream science works these days.

So, the major issue I have is that the laws of physics and the accepted rules and methods of circuit analysis in electrical engineering simply don't mesh with what these people claim the GS and GW filters are doing. That's a problem, and it needs a very clear and concise explanation if these products are to be taken seriously.

I realize that my current understand of electrical engineering may be lacking, and I fully accept (and even HOPE) that there are many things in physics that we have totally wrong, or that we don't know about yet.

For example, I'm convinced Tesla was on to something very big, and I wish to god I could totally grasp what it was!

But in any case, I find it difficult to accept or endorse something that I can clearly see should not work at all, especially when I see other people paying their hard-earned bucks to buy this stuff. And when I see the people promoting them hiding behind experts giving clearly erroneous defenses, my alarm bells ring at maximum volume.

Well, okay, but what about the people who have these filters, and they DO get relief?

That's a question I cannot answer. It's possible that they ARE working in some way that I (and clearly others) don't understand. I can accept that, but then I want to know how it works.

It's possible the filters work for some people due purely to the placebo effect. Well, more power to 'em! Sugar pills produce miracles sometimes. I can accept that, as well.

Like I said, I don't doubt for a minute that our techy toys are killing us - along with everything else in this world. But I also don't want to believe in yet more lies - if that is in fact what they are. Until somebody can give me an explanation that actually makes sense, I can't buy it. If these filters are actually doing what they claim, then I would like to know HOW.

Having said all that, it's very clear from reading the SOTT articles that there IS a lot of good research on the negative effects of EMF, and there are clearly links in many cases between EMF and bad health. It's important to be aware of all this stuff.
 

Attachments

  • Evaluation of Stetzer Filters.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 3
  • GSFiltersHealthCanada.pdf
    212.4 KB · Views: 2

Divide by Zero

The Living Force
Scottie said:
<snip>
The designers of the GS and GW filters either have a Tesla-like understanding of electrical engineering that totally escapes me, or they have no understanding of even basic circuit analysis at all.

When I first looked at the schematic for a GS/GW-type filter, I said, "Um, that won't work..."

After thinking about it, I decided to see what other people said. Here's one guy who makes some good points:

http://www.emfrelief.com/capacitive-filters.html (note the noise filter schematic for a switching power supply)

Then I thought, "Well, I'd like to analyze one of these filters myself." It was then I found an existing analysis done by Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada (PDF attached). Their analysis is exactly what I would have done, it is fairly sound as far as I can see, and I have to agree with many (but not all) of their hypotheses and conclusions.

In one part of their experiment, they found that the GS Microsurge reading (withOUT a GS filter) actually dropped when a CRT computer monitor was turned on (the dirty power reading was HIGHER when it was OFF).

Another interesting bit:

The foremost observation from these measurements is that the current drawn from the electricity supply by the Stetzer filter appears to be heavily distorted. It possesses harmonic frequencies well in excess of 10 kHz, which would otherwise not exist if it weren’t for the filter. These currents add (in a vector fashion) to the load currents drawn by the appliances in a house and are a significant source of “dirty electricity” in their own right.

This is exactly what I would expect to happen.
<snip>
Hi Scottie,

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I deal with technical aspects of electrical systems out in utilities.

I don't understand how this noise is localized and doesn't just spread through the local secondary wiring before the transformers (120/240-usa,canada,japan or 220/380 rest).
If it's such a low voltage and low current, the changing of wire sizes wouldn't "stop" it from passing through the neighborhood secondary.
So if you throw on some filters, you pretty much are trying to filter the whole secondary segment (before the transformers).

I'm confused and like you feel that there are things that don't make sense.


Edit: I was also confused about the magnetic effects of wires not being together.
I understand the issue with HV lines as they have huge spacing and also ionize the air.

However, in house wiring that uses romex or BX never will have that issue. Knob and tube systems may, where they can share and splice into a neutral or hot leg in an unbalanced way. But, with romex/bx, every feed leaving the panel has either 2 or 3 wires. In a 2 wire, you have a hot and neutral together until the outlet/light/load. They balance out magnetic effects. In a 3 wire, the hot hot and neutral all run together and may diverge at some point, with the neutral being split between the two. Still there is a balance even at the splits, because like a gfi breaker works, the neutral "return" current is equal to the hot current.

So, where would house wiring deviate from this and create strong magnetic fields???
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This dirty power (DP) area of EMF has lots of controversy – they all do really. That’s why the Sott article attempts to stick with study data that shows an EMF effects health signal. But dirty power is probably the least understood with regard to mechanism.

When I first started looking into DP (3 years ago?), I had the same question as the Canada folks – exactly what are the filters attenuating that could explain the health effects – both positive and negative? One of the first things I did was to try to design a test instrumentation setup that would measure the before/after effects of a GS/GW filter. I started out with the same as the Canada folks but had to reject it due to the required dynamic range to measure the noise components and maintain reference to the 60Hz fundamental. I wanted to measure from a few KHz to a few MHz. I looked at 32 bit A/D digital oscilloscopes (DO) and concluded that there was just no way to get the dynamic range – even with averaging. The only way I came up with was to use a multi-pole analog high pass filter to achieve high (and measureable) attenuation of the 60Hz and harmonics out to a few KHz, then pass the result to a 16/32 bit DO. This would preserve a reference to the fundamental 60 Hz and give the needed dynamic range to measure the noise at much higher frequencies.

I also tried to design the measurement around current probes but could find no combination of probes that would give me the dynamic range as well as a reference to the 60 Hz (maybe the technology has improved?).

I have seen no measurements of the kind I describe and the Canada folks freely admit that they could not do it. They say in their conclusions that the filters probably do attenuate high frequency noise as measured by the meters – but that it must be so low as to have no biological effect. But that doesn’t answer the original question – what are the filters actually doing (if anything)?

Could it be a complete ruse – a moneymaking fraud? I suppose its possible but I doubt it. The distortions in the current waveforms are definitely disturbing – and the apparent increase in higher frequency noise components. But what is happening at frequencies out to several hundred KHz? We don’t know.

We do know from lots of epidemiological evidence that it is the high frequency noise in EMF that appears to be the destructive mechanism. This seems to hold true regardless of the particular form of EMF.

The medical field of electrostimulation uses lower frequencies (CW) for surface (skin) treatments and higher frequencies for deeper tissue healing. The signals used are non-pulsed CW (tones) and not noise-like at all.

Regarding David Stetzer, he is not an engineer but has much experience in measurement/instrumentation and using it to measure EMF and effects on animals. His background (afaik) does not suggest fraud or ignorance. In the Sott article, the measurement of electrodes placed on a man’s two legs is his. These are real voltage differences measured on the skin. Have the damaging high frequency components (if they exist) been absorbed in the flesh? We don’t know.

Milham’s study of the La Quinta middle school cancers and correlation with classrooms with high GS meter readings described mag field measurements that ruled that (AC mag field exposure) out as a cause. Or was this cancer cluster just a colossal coincidence? We don’t know.

There are many anecdotes of health improvement. There are also cases where application of too many filters make a health situation worse. The increased current load is real, and if there is a net current wiring error in the home, then AC mag field exposure goes up.

Anyway, that’s my perspective right now. I do think it is the responsibility of folks like Stetzer and GW to quantify what their products do (by measurement) even if a clear link to health is not established.
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
LQB said:
This dirty power (DP) area of EMF has lots of controversy – they all do really. That’s why the Sott article attempts to stick with study data that shows an EMF effects health signal. But dirty power is probably the least understood with regard to mechanism.

When I first started looking into DP (3 years ago?), I had the same question as the Canada folks – exactly what are the filters attenuating that could explain the health effects – both positive and negative? One of the first things I did was to try to design a test instrumentation setup that would measure the before/after effects of a GS/GW filter. I started out with the same as the Canada folks but had to reject it due to the required dynamic range to measure the noise components and maintain reference to the 60Hz fundamental. I wanted to measure from a few KHz to a few MHz. I looked at 32 bit A/D digital oscilloscopes (DO) and concluded that there was just no way to get the dynamic range – even with averaging. The only way I came up with was to use a multi-pole analog high pass filter to achieve high (and measureable) attenuation of the 60Hz and harmonics out to a few KHz, then pass the result to a 16/32 bit DO. This would preserve a reference to the fundamental 60 Hz and give the needed dynamic range to measure the noise at much higher frequencies.

I also tried to design the measurement around current probes but could find no combination of probes that would give me the dynamic range as well as a reference to the 60 Hz (maybe the technology has improved?).

In looking at the specs of the scope they used, it should be adequate to get a fairly decent frequency spectrum between 60Hz and 100kHz, at least. It wouldn't be as good as using a real spectrum analyzer of course, but I would think it would be good enough to see some filtering effects in action.

Their explanation is they couldn't measure the 4kHz - 100kHz frequencies because they were effectively below the noise floor. Well, their scope certainly isn't high-end, but it's no slouch either. Apparently, they didn't bother looking at anything above 100kHz as you attempted to do, because they were sticking to the range mentioned by the filter folks.

LQB said:
I have seen no measurements of the kind I describe and the Canada folks freely admit that they could not do it. They say in their conclusions that the filters probably do attenuate high frequency noise as measured by the meters – but that it must be so low as to have no biological effect. But that doesn’t answer the original question – what are the filters actually doing (if anything)?

Well, they do say that they observed no higher frequencies with an amplitude above the noise floor, that the 4-100kHz frequencies were all 63.6 dB lower than the 60Hz fundamental, and that, "this observation was valid for frequencies to 100kHz although in Figures 2 and 3, only those up to 5kHz are displayed." That's in the test of the filter on line voltage alone.

Then they test the bulbs and the monitor, and they say,

Again, no comment can be made about the effectiveness of the Stetzer filter in suppressing the high frequencies in the line voltage because they are below the noise level of the instrument. Certainly there must have been some effect since the Graham-Stetzer Microsurge meter reading went down.

Assuming that 60Hz is prominent in the FFT, and all the higher frequencies are below the noise floor, then they would basically be making the same observation here as for the test of the filter on the line voltage - at least, that's how it seems, although it's a bit vague.

The comment that there must have been some effect since the GS meter went down is a bit problematic to me, unless they know exactly what the meter is measuring and that it does what it claims. That seemed like a bizarre statement to include given the nature of the evaluation.

And then, let's assume that the high-freq components ARE essentially below the noise floor. Well, so what? That doesn't necessarily mean they won't have any biological effects. Many microwave radio frequencies use spread spectrum techniques, one effect of which is to "hide" the signal below the "background noise", thereby making it difficult to detect/eavesdrop/whatever. And yet, most of us are pretty sure that many such signals are not exactly biologically friendly even at low power levels.

IOW, what if high power levels aren't even required for the negative effects of certain frequencies? We don't know either way.

In short, we don't know much. :lol:

LQB said:
We do know from lots of epidemiological evidence that it is the high frequency noise in EMF that appears to be the destructive mechanism. This seems to hold true regardless of the particular form of EMF.

The medical field of electrostimulation uses lower frequencies (CW) for surface (skin) treatments and higher frequencies for deeper tissue healing. The signals used are non-pulsed CW (tones) and not noise-like at all.

Regarding David Stetzer, he is not an engineer but has much experience in measurement/instrumentation and using it to measure EMF and effects on animals. His background (afaik) does not suggest fraud or ignorance. In the Sott article, the measurement of electrodes placed on a man’s two legs is his. These are real voltage differences measured on the skin. Have the damaging high frequency components (if they exist) been absorbed in the flesh? We don’t know.

Milham’s study of the La Quinta middle school cancers and correlation with classrooms with high GS meter readings described mag field measurements that ruled that (AC mag field exposure) out as a cause. Or was this cancer cluster just a colossal coincidence? We don’t know.

There are many anecdotes of health improvement. There are also cases where application of too many filters make a health situation worse. The increased current load is real, and if there is a net current wiring error in the home, then AC mag field exposure goes up.

I don't know about in the US, but if France is any indication, everyone has wiring errors in their home. Sweet mother of Caesar, the nutty things electricians around here sometimes just boggle my mind. Usually it involves very squirrelly things with neutral wires, which is apparently exactly the kind of thing one needs to avoid.

Personally, when I look at the data, I find it rather hard to say that it's all just coincidence. Are other factors involved? Maybe. Probably, even... But then it does seem there are some instances where some people are more susceptible to EMF for some reason, and others where it generally seems to result in increased illness.

LQB said:
Anyway, that’s my perspective right now. I do think it is the responsibility of folks like Stetzer and GW to quantify what their products do (by measurement) even if a clear link to health is not established.

This is what kind of drives me nuts. Why don't they get a spectrum analyzer (they could use one for free by consulting a university somewhere), do some tests, and publish the results? I don't mean "peer-reviewed" even, but just publish it on their site? That would end the hoopla right there.

In any case, it's also possible the filters work, but nobody really understands how. I always think of that thing... what was it called? The Hieronymus machine! That's it. Apparently, it worked, despite its use of "eloptic emanations" and stuff that sounds nuts and makes no sense to current science.

Instead of saying "they work!" or "they don't work!", maybe it's best to just say: I'm interested to hear of any other experiences with the GS or Greenwave filters!
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In looking at the specs of the scope they used, it should be adequate to get a fairly decent frequency spectrum between 60Hz and 100kHz, at least. It wouldn't be as good as using a real spectrum analyzer of course, but I would think it would be good enough to see some filtering effects in action.

Their explanation is they couldn't measure the 4kHz - 100kHz frequencies because they were effectively below the noise floor. Well, their scope certainly isn't high-end, but it's no slouch either. Apparently, they didn't bother looking at anything above 100kHz as you attempted to do, because they were sticking to the range mentioned by the filter folks.

The problem is dynamic range – the Canada folks assumed that their instrumentation would measure the noise and reduction. My assessment at the time was that it would not – the fundamental 60Hz and harmonics were too high and even their sidelobes would interfere – even with extreme windowing. Those noise components are below their noise floor and likely spread out over a wide band (unlike the lower frequency harmonics).

I think the GS filter attenuates out to about 140KHz. The GW filters extend the filtering out to 5MHz (last I knew) – thus my desire to get to very low levels over a wide band and expectations of high sample rates with as many effective bits as I could get.

Stetzer has never claimed (afaik) that the meter GS units relate directly to any electrical quantity that we know and love. The GW meter, however, display the units as millivolts (mV). In phone discussions with the GW folks (years ago) they told me that this is an averaged value over the frequency band(s) of attenuation. I asked them to PLEASE build a meter that would produce these integrated noise levels at least by decade of frequency (like a rough spectrum analyzer). I explained my diagnostic reasons – but they never did.

Generally the GW meter reads higher than the GS – makes sense – more BW. Sometimes it reads much higher (not often).

Anyway, let’s assume that you want to measure down to 50 GS units and that this is roughly equivalent to 50 mV. The ratio to the fundamental is 2400. This energy will be spread over a very wide band like a noise spectrum. If it were all gathered in a single tone, it would be easier to measure AND it would also likely be harmless, since we know that noise-like bandwidth appears to be the damaging mechanism to health (the more BW, the more noise-like). This is why no standard lab measurement is going to do.

The comment that there must have been some effect since the GS meter went down is a bit problematic to me, unless they know exactly what the meter is measuring and that it does what it claims. That seemed like a bizarre statement to include given the nature of the evaluation.

I agree – bizarre – almost like they are trying to admit something. Could it be that they were told before-hand what the outcome of the study should be, and then told to go prove it? As far as I can tell, Health Canada = FDA.

And then, let's assume that the high-freq components ARE essentially below the noise floor. Well, so what? That doesn't necessarily mean they won't have any biological effects. Many microwave radio frequencies use spread spectrum techniques, one effect of which is to "hide" the signal below the "background noise", thereby making it difficult to detect/eavesdrop/whatever. And yet, most of us are pretty sure that many such signals are not exactly biologically friendly even at low power levels.

IOW, what if high power levels aren't even required for the negative effects of certain frequencies? We don't know either way.

In short, we don't know much.

Exactly!

I don't know about in the US, but if France is any indication, everyone has wiring errors in their home. Sweet mother of Caesar, the nutty things electricians around here sometimes just boggle my mind. Usually it involves very squirrelly things with neutral wires, which is apparently exactly the kind of thing one needs to avoid.

Personally, when I look at the data, I find it rather hard to say that it's all just coincidence. Are other factors involved? Maybe. Probably, even... But then it does seem there are some instances where some people are more susceptible to EMF for some reason, and others where it generally seems to result in increased illness.

Yes, and I’m sure that net current due to wiring errors plays a role in all of this. I’m quite sure that Henshaw thinks very strongly that the high freq noise on the mag field is the biggest health culprit. I’m leaning in his direction. Karl Riley does not deal with DP but he has some hair-raising stories about net current.

Also worth noting that most homes do not need very many filters – even if the unfiltered noise is bad. The closer you can get them to the service panel – the better. You do not need one on every circuit. IMO, if you have a circuit that is on a lot and drawing 8-10 amps, adding a filter to it is not going to be a big deal and may even make a net current problem LESS dangerous if the high frequency noise is reduced!

And I think that someone who is already compromised in health, diet and toxic exposure will fare badly under EMF stress.

This is what kind of drives me nuts. Why don't they get a spectrum analyzer (they could use one for free by consulting a university somewhere), do some tests, and publish the results? I don't mean "peer-reviewed" even, but just publish it on their site? That would end the hoopla right there.

Me too – but I’ve spent enough time with these guys. Maybe that’s what Stetzer was offering through the Havas letter.

I have had e-mail conversation with David Stetzer in which he insisted that the filters cannot deal with solar system inverters due to their very noisy nature. True – they are noisier (by a bunch) – but they can be made acceptable with the filters.
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
LQB said:
In looking at the specs of the scope they used, it should be adequate to get a fairly decent frequency spectrum between 60Hz and 100kHz, at least. It wouldn't be as good as using a real spectrum analyzer of course, but I would think it would be good enough to see some filtering effects in action.

Their explanation is they couldn't measure the 4kHz - 100kHz frequencies because they were effectively below the noise floor. Well, their scope certainly isn't high-end, but it's no slouch either. Apparently, they didn't bother looking at anything above 100kHz as you attempted to do, because they were sticking to the range mentioned by the filter folks.

The problem is dynamic range – the Canada folks assumed that their instrumentation would measure the noise and reduction. My assessment at the time was that it would not – the fundamental 60Hz and harmonics were too high and even their sidelobes would interfere – even with extreme windowing. Those noise components are below their noise floor and likely spread out over a wide band (unlike the lower frequency harmonics).

I think the GS filter attenuates out to about 140KHz. The GW filters extend the filtering out to 5MHz (last I knew) – thus my desire to get to very low levels over a wide band and expectations of high sample rates with as many effective bits as I could get.

Stetzer has never claimed (afaik) that the meter GS units relate directly to any electrical quantity that we know and love. The GW meter, however, display the units as millivolts (mV). In phone discussions with the GW folks (years ago) they told me that this is an averaged value over the frequency band(s) of attenuation. I asked them to PLEASE build a meter that would produce these integrated noise levels at least by decade of frequency (like a rough spectrum analyzer). I explained my diagnostic reasons – but they never did.

Generally the GW meter reads higher than the GS – makes sense – more BW. Sometimes it reads much higher (not often).

Anyway, let’s assume that you want to measure down to 50 GS units and that this is roughly equivalent to 50 mV. The ratio to the fundamental is 2400. This energy will be spread over a very wide band like a noise spectrum. If it were all gathered in a single tone, it would be easier to measure AND it would also likely be harmless, since we know that noise-like bandwidth appears to be the damaging mechanism to health (the more BW, the more noise-like). This is why no standard lab measurement is going to do.

AHA! I see. Thanks for the explanation.

LQB said:
I have had e-mail conversation with David Stetzer in which he insisted that the filters cannot deal with solar system inverters due to their very noisy nature. True – they are noisier (by a bunch) – but they can be made acceptable with the filters.

Well, this is our dilemma at the Farm. The Farm has solar panels, and there's an inverter upstairs in a "technical closet". This closet will also include a breaker panel for the upstairs, a phone line junction box, a GigE patch panel, and eventually multiple internet modems. Nearby this closet will be a water closet, a bathroom, and there is 1 bedroom whose wall starts maybe 2 or 3m away from the closet. The closet is up against an outside wall of the house, more or less in a corner of the upstairs floor.

It also just so happens that one of the "Farm Boys" ;) is electrosensitive. So, he was asking me what to do, and I was like, "I dunno!" Hence my finally digging in to all of this...

And now I seem to have come full circle... I still would like to know the how's and why's, but it seems that's not gonna be easy to determine. So, then I consider the anecdotal evidence, and it seems pretty good (despite the "HOW?!" still echoing in my brain, which never goes away!). And of course we have our very own carbon-based bipedal EMF Detector now, so that will come in handy. I'm pretty sure I understand how he works: BIDO (bacon in, detection out) :lol:

Do you know what the best course of action in this case is? Should we get either a GS or GW meter, and which filters are regarded as "better"? I seem to recall that some of the filters were rated pretty low in terms of current (like 1A), whereas the other brand was rated 5A.

Plus, the electric hookup at the Farm is 3-phase. The initial idea was to get a meter and measure once everything is all hooked up and renovated and functioning, and then buy 3 filters that we plug in near the panel in the tech closet - one outlet for each phase. Then measure again (both with the physical meter and the biological meter).

At this point, short of either winning the lottery or getting some institution with some serious equipment to let us play with it, I'm not sure how to do any real testing. So, I guess we experiment.

I had previously considered buying 1 meter and 1 filter, ripping apart the filter, and then building more... possibly more robust ones if necessary. Not sure if that's even feasible. If the filters circuits are "molded" inside the casing (I forget what they call that), it would be awfully hard to reverse engineer.

Also, all the wiring at the Farm (which is being done by our very own Carbon-based Bipedal EMF Detector - not me) is done with the French version of Romex. And if there are any crossed neutrals and that kind of nonsense, I'll eat my shoes. Plus, we can test for that kind of thing anyway based on Riley's rather enlightening protocol, since I have a clamp ammeter.

There was also talk of shielding the closet for good measure, although I think that would potentially reduce the effects of a slightly different EMF problem.
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Oh...

Answering myself here: How does the GS meter work?

I looked at the patent, and it's basically an active differentiator that filters out the lower-frequency (and supposedly less harmful) part of the line voltage (including the 60Hz fundamental). Then it feeds the higher frequencies (10kHz - 100kHz according to their web site) into the differentiator. The output is a DC level useful for driving a meter.

So, it measures sudden changes in voltage in the given frequency range over time - IOW, spikes/noise on the line in the given freq range. The higher the spikes across the freq range, the higher the reading in "GS units" (dV/dt).

It's surprisingly simple, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work.

It then makes sense that adding a GS filter would reduce the reading... If the filter "converts" noisy voltage into noisy current, then the meter reading would drop. But I'm still stuck on what happens to the noisy current.

As far as I know, capacitive coupling results from difference in voltage (like between 2 traces on a PCB). So, reduce the noisy voltage, and you reduce (?) the capacitive coupling to the human (assuming that the V-induced electric field is the evil culprit).

But then you end up with noisy current, which I would think would cause noisy magnetic fields... except that currents must be balanced in the live and neutral, and if the live/neutral wires are kept close together, you have no big magnetic field... Maybe?

Dang, I'm stuck again. :curse:
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It also just so happens that one of the "Farm Boys" ;) is electrosensitive. So, he was asking me what to do, and I was like, "I dunno!" Hence my finally digging in to all of this...

And now I seem to have come full circle... I still would like to know the how's and why's, but it seems that's not gonna be easy to determine. So, then I consider the anecdotal evidence, and it seems pretty good (despite the "HOW?!" still echoing in my brain, which never goes away!). And of course we have our very own carbon-based bipedal EMF Detector now, so that will come in handy. I'm pretty sure I understand how he works: BIDO (bacon in, detection out) :lol:

Do you know what the best course of action in this case is? Should we get either a GS or GW meter, and which filters are regarded as "better"? I seem to recall that some of the filters were rated pretty low in terms of current (like 1A), whereas the other brand was rated 5A.

The "Farm Boy" bio-detector BIDO is a great asset! :lol:

The first thing to do is to bring down sockets (via breakers) from both A and B sides (phases) of your main service panels - both solar and grid. Your first filters will go in these sockets. The idea is to get the noise down with as few filters as possible (and close to the source). If you’re lucky, you may not need much for the grid (if it is quiet) – but you will want a few to treat circuits that carry heavy digital loads – these will be noisy.

I would choose GW over GS since the filter BW is greater and they also filter the ground circuit (3-pronged vs 2-pronged). I also use GS power strips that come with two filters inside (six sockets) for computers and digital electronics – not sure if GW now offers these.

Applying the filters is a squirrely business – “trial and error” is your friend. Sometimes you will lower the noise on one circuit only to find an increase elsewhere – this is particularly true when dealing with solar inverter circuits.

I think the very first thing I would do is get a cheap gauss meter, load your circuits, and then test for net current, and try to fix any wiring errors (crossed ground/neutrals) you might find – then proceed with applying the filters.

When I wired my place, I used BX cable instead of Romex in order to cut down the E-field in the house. You will still have a healthy E-field at every socket and fixture (not to mention net current) but there will be no E-field along the runs of BX.
I generally shoot for a GS/GW meter reading of <50 for the power grid and <100 for the solar grid. For the solar grid, you may have to apply some filters to even get a meter reading that is not off-scale (>2000).

So far (based on treating solar grids) it appears that the solar system ground should be well separated from the house grid ground and multiple ground rods in parallel (separated by at least 6 feet or so) are best.

At this point, short of either winning the lottery or getting some institution with some serious equipment to let us play with it, I'm not sure how to do any real testing. So, I guess we experiment.

That’s been my approach.

There was also talk of shielding the closet for good measure, although I think that would potentially reduce the effects of a slightly different EMF problem.

You can shield the E-Field but not the mag field. As long as no living space is within about 4-5 feet of the offenders, then you should be fine – you can verify with the gauss meter.


As far as I know, capacitive coupling results from difference in voltage (like between 2 traces on a PCB). So, reduce the noisy voltage, and you reduce (?) the capacitive coupling to the human (assuming that the V-induced electric field is the evil culprit).

But then you end up with noisy current, which I would think would cause noisy magnetic fields... except that currents must be balanced in the live and neutral, and if the live/neutral wires are kept close together, you have no big magnetic field... Maybe?

You don’t reduce the capacitive coupling – you reduce just the high freq noise that couples. You can measure the coupling across parts of the body (with skin electrodes) like Stetzer did (in the sott article). And a small amount of current does flow reflecting a residual ion content in the air.

Yes, if net current is zero, then no mag field. The distortions in the current waveform likely produce near-in harmonics as opposed to wideband high freq noise – but to measure/verify this, we’re back to the same measurement problem.
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
LQB said:
The first thing to do is to bring down sockets (via breakers) from both A and B sides (phases) of your main service panels - both solar and grid. Your first filters will go in these sockets. The idea is to get the noise down with as few filters as possible (and close to the source). If you’re lucky, you may not need much for the grid (if it is quiet) – but you will want a few to treat circuits that carry heavy digital loads – these will be noisy.

Okay. They don't do split-phase here like they do in N. America, though. Instead of ~240V split into A and B at 120V, you get either single-phase at 230V, or 3-phase (each at 230V). Of course, since we're in the middle of farmland with more sparsely located homes, everybody gets 3-phase. As far as I can figure, that shouldn't make much difference. We'd just use 3 filters instead of 2, ja?

LQB said:
I would choose GW over GS since the filter BW is greater and they also filter the ground circuit (3-pronged vs 2-pronged). I also use GS power strips that come with two filters inside (six sockets) for computers and digital electronics – not sure if GW now offers these.

Okeydokey.

LQB said:
Applying the filters is a squirrely business – “trial and error” is your friend. Sometimes you will lower the noise on one circuit only to find an increase elsewhere – this is particularly true when dealing with solar inverter circuits.

I think the very first thing I would do is get a cheap gauss meter, load your circuits, and then test for net current, and try to fix any wiring errors (crossed ground/neutrals) you might find – then proceed with applying the filters.

Alrighty.

LQB said:
When I wired my place, I used BX cable instead of Romex in order to cut down the E-field in the house. You will still have a healthy E-field at every socket and fixture (not to mention net current) but there will be no E-field along the runs of BX.
I generally shoot for a GS/GW meter reading of <50 for the power grid and <100 for the solar grid. For the solar grid, you may have to apply some filters to even get a meter reading that is not off-scale (>2000).

The stuff we're using at the farm is basically 3-conductor in a round cable, where the 3 wires are arranged in a straight-through triangular pattern. The insulated wires inside the cable are tightly packed together, with a more flexible white insulation around them, and then the whole thing is encased in a tougher black jacket. It's as close as you're gonna get the wires without twisting them, anyway.

LQB said:
So far (based on treating solar grids) it appears that the solar system ground should be well separated from the house grid ground and multiple ground rods in parallel (separated by at least 6 feet or so) are best.

Well, that's interesting. I'm not even sure where the solar inverter ground goes! We didn't touch the connections between the inverter and the power co's panel, so I'll have to check that out. I put in a new ground for the 2 new panels (upstairs/downstairs). The old ground was only connected to the old tiny breaker panel, and it was basically a wire going through a hole in the wall, which was then connected to a steel rod stuck in the ground amidst some plants next to the house. :shock:

LQB said:
You can shield the E-Field but not the mag field. As long as no living space is within about 4-5 feet of the offenders, then you should be fine – you can verify with the gauss meter.

In that case, we probably won't need any shielding. We'll test it.

LQB said:
As far as I know, capacitive coupling results from difference in voltage (like between 2 traces on a PCB). So, reduce the noisy voltage, and you reduce (?) the capacitive coupling to the human (assuming that the V-induced electric field is the evil culprit).

But then you end up with noisy current, which I would think would cause noisy magnetic fields... except that currents must be balanced in the live and neutral, and if the live/neutral wires are kept close together, you have no big magnetic field... Maybe?

You don’t reduce the capacitive coupling – you reduce just the high freq noise that couples. You can measure the coupling across parts of the body (with skin electrodes) like Stetzer did (in the sott article). And a small amount of current does flow reflecting a residual ion content in the air.

Yes, if net current is zero, then no mag field. The distortions in the current waveform likely produce near-in harmonics as opposed to wideband high freq noise – but to measure/verify this, we’re back to the same measurement problem.

:wow:
I think that actually makes sense!

So, a theoretical summary:

Electrical noise on power lines from things like switching power supplies capacitively couples to the human body. If you could reduce the voltage of the noise, you'd have less coupling of the noise frequencies, since capacitive coupling depends on an electric field, which itself depends on a voltage differential. So, you measure with your meter - which is actually measuring the change in voltage over the change in time for the noise frequency range - and it outputs a general value of the amount of noise. Then, you stick in a filter (which is nothing more than a capacitor) and it works to reduce the voltage of the noise. It also introduces noisy current on the power lines, but that noisy current is probably lower-frequency noise (more or less). Plus, current on the neutral and phase are alternating, and those 2 currents must be equal. So, if the phase and neutral wires are kept close together, you don't get a crazy mag field, either. Thus, everything is awesome. Well, it's more awesomer than before.

Hmm, I think that might be a bit simplistic, but it seems like a good start... There are still other things to consider, like the effects of mag fields, wiring errors in the house, the "ion wind" thing, etc. But at least for this specific part of the issue, it seems to make sense to me.

Will the flashing red "HOW?!" light in my head finally turn green?! STAY TUNED!
:cuckoo:
 

LQB

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Just a note here: Riley uses a set of expensive current probes so he can get into tight spaces and make very accurate current measurements for comparison. I don’t like putting a current probe inside a panel box, so I’d rather use a gauss meter. It takes longer but you’ll find all kinds of net current sources (like electric range), and you’ll see what a safe distance away really is.

Okay. They don't do split-phase here like they do in N. America, though. Instead of ~240V split into A and B at 120V, you get either single-phase at 230V, or 3-phase (each at 230V). Of course, since we're in the middle of farmland with more sparsely located homes, everybody gets 3-phase. As far as I can figure, that shouldn't make much difference. We'd just use 3 filters instead of 2, ja?
Yes, whatever is distributed to the breakers needs a filter so if the panel box bus is 3-way to the breakers/circuits, then you will need 3 filters – preferably close to the box. It also means that you’ll need 3 more breakers.

The stuff we're using at the farm is basically 3-conductor in a round cable, where the 3 wires are arranged in a straight-through triangular pattern. The insulated wires inside the cable are tightly packed together, with a more flexible white insulation around them, and then the whole thing is encased in a tougher black jacket. It's as close as you're gonna get the wires without twisting them, anyway.
If the cable is shielded then its as good as BX. If the outer layer is not metalized, then it is not shielded.

Well, that's interesting. I'm not even sure where the solar inverter ground goes! We didn't touch the connections between the inverter and the power co's panel, so I'll have to check that out. I put in a new ground for the 2 new panels (upstairs/downstairs). The old ground was only connected to the old tiny breaker panel, and it was basically a wire going through a hole in the wall, which was then connected to a steel rod stuck in the ground amidst some plants next to the house.

Grounding is one of the commonly overlooked areas – even by the power folks. Neutral and grounds should be bonded ONLY at the service entrance panel – nowhere else. You want all current headed to ground to actually get there (the voltage drop has already occurred across the load). The resistance looking back towards the transformer that feeds the house may not be all that low. So you want a very low resistance path to ground – the ground rod. If this resistance grows (with time, age, etc), then current will return through the ground/neutrals setting up ground loops around the house. One theory is that this may exacerbate the solar inverter noise as well (I have no explanation for that if true).

Electrical noise on power lines from things like switching power supplies capacitively couples to the human body. If you could reduce the voltage of the noise, you'd have less coupling of the noise frequencies, since capacitive coupling depends on an electric field, which itself depends on a voltage differential. So, you measure with your meter - which is actually measuring the change in voltage over the change in time for the noise frequency range - and it outputs a general value of the amount of noise. Then, you stick in a filter (which is nothing more than a capacitor) and it works to reduce the voltage of the noise. It also introduces noisy current on the power lines, but that noisy current is probably lower-frequency noise (more or less). Plus, current on the neutral and phase are alternating, and those 2 currents must be equal. So, if the phase and neutral wires are kept close together, you don't get a crazy mag field, either. Thus, everything is awesome. Well, it's more awesomer than before.

Yes – good summary.

Will the flashing red "HOW?!" light in my head finally turn green?! STAY TUNED!

Mine probably won’t until I see some real before/after measurements independent of the meter.
 

Divide by Zero

The Living Force
Grounding is one of the commonly overlooked areas – even by the power folks. Neutral and grounds should be bonded ONLY at the service entrance panel – nowhere else. You want all current headed to ground to actually get there (the voltage drop has already occurred across the load). The resistance looking back towards the transformer that feeds the house may not be all that low. So you want a very low resistance path to ground – the ground rod. If this resistance grows (with time, age, etc), then current will return through the ground/neutrals setting up ground loops around the house. One theory is that this may exacerbate the solar inverter noise as well (I have no explanation for that if true).

In the 2010 code and up, bonding has become more important than grounding. If the ground potential is not even across rods (like using separate rods for solar, etc), you get current loops flowing through the earth which you mention.

I'm still confused why the AC output of the solar system wouldn't be bonded to the main panel - which it feeds power into the grid??
 
Top Bottom