• 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.

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Totally enclose it in a laminated steel (or iron) and copper box. No openings.
Visible light is also EM. If you are allowing light out, you are not blocking all EM.

See the problem? That's why you are getting some sarcasm...

You get 1000W or more per square metre of electromagnetic radiation just by being outdoors on a clear day; sunlight.
A light bulb / lamp in a room likely radiates more than a typical monitor.

The whole concept of "blocking" such things is nonsensical, regardless or what any youtubers or scammers selling "protection" devices may claim.
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
But I was not expecting you or anyone to accept it.
I don't accept it, but that's not a reason not to discuss it. All good discussions begin with disagreement.
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.
Which I did, first response, first sentence, first word. Followed by an explanation why, followed by a real-world example (that still is an industry standard practice almost 50 years later).
JimB called me "right lulu", I called that mocking.
Jim's reputation and attitude predate you.
And you assumed that I'd treat your response as mocking, because you seemed to have made me out to be wrong.
An assumption based on decades of experience. This isn't my first rodeo.
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 You maintain your view, but yours is based on limited and possibly outdated knowledge.
And there it is.

ak
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
How is this any different than the thread of his that was locked earlier?
It's quite likely to end up going the same way, especially when someone holds a view of 'superiority' such as this:
You maintain your view, but yours is based on limited and possibly outdated knowledge.
 

AnalogKid

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
It is a different topic. The sensitivity he is asking about is not an established / recognized condition, but the anecdotal evidence is more compelling and, importantly, more consistent. I suspect that it will shake out like multiple personality disorder - once the dust settles and verified diagnostics are in place, there will be way way way fewer actual cases.

ak
 

Mickster

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
I would never assume that tone is superiority, I viewed it as utter ignorance.
(Did that sound too "superior"?)
In general, when communicating with certain people who are absolutely convinced that they are right and 'have done their research', whether or not they actually understand that research does not seem to be taken into account by them, the tone comes across as 'I know what I am talking about, more than you do, because I have spent countless hours looking into this', It does not matter whether they are talking to a doctor, a professor, a nuclear physicist, or a neuro surgeon, they have formed their opinion and that is that. If you disagree, you are wrong.

A lot of times you will find that there is lack of understanding of the sciences, where a hypothesis is made and then it is torn apart from a million different angles to determine whether on not it is correct. We all know that that is how science works and is continually improved upon. But to have an attitude where 'I am right, you are wrong, don't try to challenge me!' .....although generally founded from ignorance, as you correctly state, tends to give that person a 'feeling of authority' based upon what they think they know.

A great example of this, is a flat-earther who thinks that he is super intelligent and can completely ignore science-based evidence:
There is generally some strong language in his videos, so be warned.
 

shortbus=

Well-Known Member
In general, when communicating with certain people who are absolutely convinced that they are right and 'have done their research', whether or not they actually understand that research does not seem to be taken into account by them, the tone comes across as 'I know what I am talking about, more than you do, because I have spent countless hours looking into this', It does not matter whether they are talking to a doctor, a professor, a nuclear physicist, or a neuro surgeon, they have formed their opinion and that is that. If you disagree, you are wrong.
Are you trying to say a certain banned member is back with a new name?
 
In general, when communicating with certain people who are absolutely convinced that they are right and 'have done their research', whether or not they actually understand that research does not seem to be taken into account by them, the tone comes across as 'I know what I am talking about, more than you do, because I have spent countless hours looking into this', It does not matter whether they are talking to a doctor, a professor, a nuclear physicist, or a neuro surgeon, they have formed their opinion and that is that. If you disagree, you are wrong.

A lot of times you will find that there is lack of understanding of the sciences, where a hypothesis is made and then it is torn apart from a million different angles to determine whether on not it is correct. We all know that that is how science works and is continually improved upon. But to have an attitude where 'I am right, you are wrong, don't try to challenge me!' .....although generally founded from ignorance, as you correctly state, tends to give that person a 'feeling of authority' based upon what they think they know.

A great example of this, is a flat-earther who thinks that he is super intelligent and can completely ignore science-based evidence:
There is generally some strong language in his videos, so be warned.
I shared these links with AnalogKid in my PM with him.

1. https://www.wired.com/2008/05/army-removes-pa/
2. https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf
3. https://www.wired.com/2008/02/report-nonletha/
4. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5785653

I feel some of them back up my views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top