• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Will this solution block EMF from LCD/LED monitors?

Status
Not open for further replies.

unclejed613

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
my first question would be "Why?" if you work in a job where you need TEMPEST shielding, you should already have equipment with it built-in. i kind of gather from the page linked, that TEMPEST shielding isn't the goal.
 
my first question would be "Why?" if you work in a job where you need TEMPEST shielding, you should already have equipment with it built-in. i kind of gather from the page linked, that TEMPEST shielding isn't the goal.
To answer your question, I want to protect myself from unnecessary EMF exposure. Also to prevent any mind reading and mind control.

You guessed right about TEMPEST.
 

JimB

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
If people could read my mind, they would run away screaming.

JimB
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
To answer the thread title - No.

The video is an excellent example of how people who reject science fail at pseudo-science. The video aims to make a grounded shield around something while allowing visible light to pass. The problem is that distilled water does ***not*** conduct electricity. Back in my TV days, the transmitter's klystron ran on 19,000 volts inside a refrigerated water jacket, and the water pump was grounded. Pure water is an insulator. Also, there is no credible evidence to support electromagnetic hypersensitivity (note correct spelling). And even if there were, an LCD is the not the thing to worry about. Color CRTs had 20 kV electron beams pointed directly at the viewer; compared to that, an LCD's non-visible emissions are around 1%. The computer driving the display probably radiates more. And then there is the house wiring, the streetlights, etc.

We know SAD (seasonal affective disorder) is real because it can be measured in a controlled test environment. So can sensitivity to street light flicker, strobe lights (red in particular), etc. We know that red/infrared light promotes wound healing, and pulsed electromagnetic fields promote broken bone healing, because NASA proved them with tests and measurements. The problem with designing a shield for something that cannot be measured is that there is no way to verify that the shielding works. Just saying "I feel better" is not enough. Saying "it shields other stuff" is not enough. Serious people (both believers and non-) around the world have been trying to verify this effect for *decades*, and still there is no credible evidence.

Note - I'm not mocking you at all; I'm just saying I think you are wrong. There is a difference.

ak
 
Last edited:
AnalogKid

I thank you for your thoughts.

I have not forwarded my view here, so for what exactly are you saying I'm wrong?

RT did a documentary on this Electrosensitivity, reputed researchers spoke in it, here is a link, if you are interested:

 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
RT did a documentary on this Electrosensitivity,
I bounced through it, skipping most of the anecdotal parts. Overall, no worse than average. I noticed that there were some wide shots that showed the subject and the main camera only about two feet apart. That camera radiates a ton of RF that didn't seem to bother the person who was so sensitive she had to handle a phone cord with a pen.

"I could intermittently use a flashlight."
A flashlight does not radiate an AC electromagnetic field.

A corded phone radiates waves also. That is how TDD works.

"It's classic electrohypersensitivity."
No, it isn't. It is brain damage caused by microwave heating, the same thing that melted the chocolate bar that lead to the microwave oven. The difference in energy density between a focused military radar beam and the leakage around a microwave oven door is one billion billion to 1. -ish,

"...like sawtooth and sinewaves, that do not exist in nature."
Much more sloppy statement than usual. Some argue that sinewaves are the ***only*** thing that exists in nature. Since December 21, 1807, we know (not think, not theorize - k.n.o.w.) that all complex waveforms, vibrations, etc. are composed of groups of sinewaves. This is why the old term for the fundamental component was the "natural" frequency.

"'Do you have wifi here?' 'Oh, no, we have a Zigbee wireless system...'"
Note the word after Zigbee. Zigbee radios in the US use the either the 900 MHz band still used by some cell phones, or the 2.4 GHz band used by microwave ovens, most cordless phones, most wifi routers, etc. This is a good example of someone mis-associating an aspect of the problem with the actual problem. It exposes the demonization or bogeyman aspect of the term "wi-fi", an emotional rather than rational reaction. It completely undermines her next statements about how "this is how my body knows how it should be" -- bathed in high-frequency RF with a different data format and better branding - ?

"20,000 microwatts"
That sounds scary. What sounds even more scary is 20 million nanowatts, or 20 billion picowatts. BTW, an adult human, awake but at rest, produces approx. 150 million microwatts, mostly as heat.

ak
 
I think it is fair to infer from that statement that you believe electronic mind reading and mind control from a distance are not just possible, but fact. Stating them as fact sure seems like a view to me.

ak
But I was not expecting you or anyone to accept it. I just wanted to know if the solutions in OP block EMF from LCD/LED monitors. You and others could have confined to just that question.

JimB called me "right lulu", I called that mocking.

And you assumed that I'd treat your response as mocking, because you seemed to have made me out to be wrong.

I maintain that view based on what I have experienced. You cannot deny that. I explained in PM to you. You maintain your view, but yours is based on limited and possibly outdated knowledge.
 
Last edited:

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
But I was not expecting you or anyone to accept it. I just wanted to know if the solutions in OP block EMF from LCD/LED monitors.
Maybe you can help us help you. What frequency/frequencies are you hoping to block?
Then we can tell you that those frequencies are not generated by the monitor, then you can aregue that they are with some YouTube "expert", rinse, repeat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top