# How Much Electromagnetic Energy...



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

How much electromagnetic energy does a Mac & PC laptop from the 1999-2001 era put out? How does this compare to modern lap-tops and other portable electronic devices.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Christ almighty, some of the questions you ask on here.

See the adaptor that plugs into any laptop or computer?

Find the label and read it.

No adaptors to hand? Google.


----------



## HouseBlackfyre (Jul 10, 2016)

Nobody is reading your thoughts through the computer EMF, you can put down the tinfoil hat if you want.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@HAL

Mostly I was curious as to what wavelengths of energy are put out and what kind of radiation hazard older computers pose compared to modern ones.

@HouseBlackfyre

Firstly: What does that have to do with the electromagnetic output a computer puts out?

Secondly: Statements regarding tin-foil hats seem to serve no other purpose than to basically belittle others and stop discussions in their tracks. I'd also like to point out that I've never heard anything to suggest that tin-foil would have any significant ability to dampen electromagnetic signals (they might amplify them however as it's a conductive substance).

Lastly: While it wasn't really in the scope of my question: It actually *would* be an interesting topic to consider how much electromagnetic energy at what wavelengths the human brain puts out, compared to a computer of the late 1990's to early 2000's.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

RobynC said:


> How much electromagnetic energy does a Mac & PC laptop from the 1999-2001 era put out? How does this compare to modern lap-tops and other portable electronic devices.


It generally varies by model number, power supply, and screen size.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

HouseBlackfyre said:


> Nobody is reading your thoughts through the computer EMF, you can put down the tinfoil hat if you want.


Hey, chill out. @RobynC asks interesting questions that nobody else thinks to ask. Give her a break.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Hey, chill out. @RobynC asks interesting questions that nobody else thinks to ask. Give her a break.


 yea bitches , wot my main man be sayin [high fives the tanstaafl28]


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Hey, chill out. @RobynC asks interesting questions that nobody else thinks to ask. Give her a break.


 yea bitches , wot my main man be sayin [high fives the tanstaafl28]


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

RobynC said:


> How much electromagnetic energy does a Mac & PC laptop from the 1999-2001 era put out? How does this compare to modern lap-tops and other portable electronic devices.


Without knowing very much about the details of the subject, I guess the main notable difference would be in the backlight of the screen. In 1999-2001, that would probably be a cold cathode light source, while nowadays most (all?) high-end devices use LED backlighting. That would probably account for at least a few Watts of difference in energy usage. Another energy consumer would be the main storage medium, which in 1999-2001 would have been a spinning disk, while today it will likely be some kind of flash memory device. And of course: CPUs and GPUs in large parts get more done at the same rate of energy usage, or use less energy to do the same work.
Radios probably use similar amounts of energy to work.

Other portable devices have gone through similar changes electronics-wise.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

All devices are, in the end, heaters.

So what ever goes in, eventually comes back out as heat at various wavelengths. Some is visible light.

What's this thread even trying to get to the bottom of? The 'dangers' of older devices? There are none. At worst there may be microwaves emitted. But... the billions of mobile phones on the planet emit microwaves as part of their functioning. Microwaves aren't hazardous.

More dangerous than that? I dunno, X-rays or gamma rays. But they take thousands of volts to produce. Computers don't produce dangerous radiation.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

RobynC said:


> How much electromagnetic energy does a Mac & PC laptop from the 1999-2001 era put out? How does this compare to modern lap-tops and other portable electronic devices.


the first portable computers used cathode ray tubes (crt) in their screens, the same technology used in older tv sets










crts produced a small amount of x-ray radiation and is the reason lead glass was used in screens (to block most of this radiation)...when you consider how many people sat in front of those tvs, the radiation hazard they presented was probably much smaller than the cultural or intellectual hazard actually inflicted, if you know what I mean

laptops never used crts because of their bulkiness...I don't think the laptops of 2000 had wifi and they certainly didn't have bluetooth, so there is probably more radiation surrounding a laptop computer today than 15 years ago...the exception might be laptops built from metal chasses (like apple laptops) since metals act as shields to electromagnetic radiation (this is why the wifi and bluetooth antennas in ipads, for example, are placed behind the embedded plastic apple logo on the otherwise all-aluminum back)...wifi and bluetooth are radio waves are not known to be health hazards, though there have been claims disputing this

some laptop screens also use something called pulse-width modulation (pwm) to both illuminate and dim screen output...basically, rather than reduce the led backlight brightness, pwm rapidly switches the backlight on and off to achieve lower apparent backlight levels...some people are sensitive to this flickering and report greater eye strain and even headaches...oems are aware of these complaints and have started marketing screens that don't use pwm, especially in their higher-end products...so screen flicker is one area where the radiation hazard of laptops (and computers) has been reduced

and then there's this...not sure how real this is

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-an...08/laptop-computers-may-affect-male-fertility

but modern laptops are more energy efficient and probably run cooler...so if this is real then guys are better off now than before


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

ae1905 said:


> I don't think the laptops of 2000 had wifi and they certainly didn't have bluetooth, so there is probably more radiation surrounding a laptop computer today than 15 years ago


Correction: Many higher-end business laptops would have had WiFi (802.11b) at least as an optional PCMCIA add-in card in 2000. I know for a fact that I haven't owned a laptop during my career that didn't. Bluetooth too was available at the time, although not as common (most laptops we used still contained their own 56k analog modem with an RJ11 plug).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

zynthaxx said:


> Correction: Many higher-end business laptops would have had WiFi (802.11b) at least as an optional PCMCIA add-in card in 2000. I know for a fact that I haven't owned a laptop during my career that didn't. Bluetooth too was available at the time, although not as common (most laptops we used still contained their own 56k analog modem with an RJ11 plug).


I checked and the first version of wifi (802.11) was released in 1997 and the second (802.11b) in 1999...bluetooth was launched in 1998...so I stand corrected...however, I don't think wireless became widely available until several years after 2000, so the airwaves were not inundated with wireless signals then as they are now


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

RobynC said:


> How much electromagnetic energy does a Mac & PC laptop from the 1999-2001 era put out? How does this compare to modern lap-tops and other portable electronic devices.


My two cents as a circuit bending workbench monkey...

I can confirm that Apple "was" notoriously careful about electromagnetic safety when they were releasing new world series. Not because they were caring our health or privacy, but because they were obsessed with fitting shit together in small spaces while keeping them robust and stable. Their ridiculously aesthetic designs weren't forgiving in a sense of electrical engineering. Most of them were not simply keeping up with standards, they were pushing it a little further. Then, Apple eventually focused on mobile devices to ride the wave of wireless revolution. Needless to say that internal designs and overall manufacturing quality deteriorated for the sake of competition.

Old Macs are well thought, ridiculously well tested and properly manufactured paperweights... Unfortunately, their outdated software/hardware makes them useless today. By the way, they are quite aged and some of their electronic components, such as electrolytic capacitors are doomed to fail by natural causes/end of life-cycle, no matter how they picked/assembled carefully in good old days.

Wired communication creates less electromagnetic pollution for sure... Wireless networks are horrible in that sense. No matter how they are evolving to be smarter and energy efficient, it's still based on blindly transmitting shit load of energy to deal with interference/noise/attenuation problems. By the way, some of your body parts, such as eyes (thanks to their diameter) resonates around 2,4 Ghz. So, are they going to make you see shit for mind control? No... It's just unhealthy as heating up your eyeballs in a microwave oven... Very, very, very slowly.

Shielding could be effective only if you have a proper electrical infrastructure at home: Stable voltage/frequency, proper wiring in good condition and most importantly a ground terminal that works.



HAL said:


> Christ almighty, some of the questions you ask on here.
> 
> See the adaptor that plugs into any laptop or computer?
> 
> ...


Maybe you better Google to learn the difference between "The EMF measurements of an entire device" and variables like "voltage/current/intended mains frequency" of it's power supply.



tanstaafl28 said:


> It generally varies by model number, power supply, and screen size.


Hardly... Practical conditions are also important than theoretical specifications. I have seen enough tiny screamers and quiet giants. I think "too expensive/heavy for it's size" could be a good sign as generalization. Nothing comes for free, even a piece of copper tape.



zynthaxx said:


> Without knowing very much about the details of the subject, I guess the main notable difference would be in the backlight of the screen. In 1999-2001, that would probably be a cold cathode light source, while nowadays most (all?) high-end devices use LED backlighting. That would probably account for at least a few Watts of difference in energy usage.


Indeed, both CCFL and LED backlights are using a PWM... And... LEDs are relatively quiet because they don't need insanely high voltages to excite tubes.



HAL said:


> All devices are, in the end, heaters.
> 
> So what ever goes in, eventually comes back out as heat at various wavelengths. Some is visible light.


Somehow I had great expectations after you started with Planck constant.



HAL said:


> What's this thread even trying to get to the bottom of? The 'dangers' of older devices? There are none. At worst there may be microwaves emitted. But... the billions of mobile phones on the planet emit microwaves as part of their functioning. Microwaves aren't hazardous.


Even visible light from a blue power indicator LED can seriously damage your eye and even fuck up your metabolic cycles.

LED Lighting and Retinal Damage in Rats

How Blue LEDs Affect Sleep

Let me know if you would like to discuss the microwave spectrum separately?



HAL said:


> More dangerous than that? I dunno, X-rays or gamma rays. But they take thousands of volts to produce. Computers don't produce dangerous radiation.


It depends on individuals.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

After all, I think OP asked a reasonable question and he have the right to learn technical specifications of whatever physical device he will buy... Besides the online services and shit.

The attitude of "_I told you it's safe, stop asking questions_" will only feed paranoia. It's safe enough for me as it could be dangerous for somebody with a ridiculously high cancer risk. It's "unknown in the long term" as something still new.

By the way, an average CCFL inverter of any laptop operates near kilo-volts range. You can also cut steel bars with 1,5 volts if you can provide enough current. So, don't rely on a particular variable to assume what is safe or dangerous.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

The reason had to do with an episode of JAG actually, which was based on the actual forcing down of an EP-3 in 2001: In the show I remember a comment that said something like they can tell an mac from a PC laptop 5 miles away.

I know such systems would be incredibly sensitive at detecting such things but I've had a PC (a fairly modern one) on my lap a long time and I've had moments where I could feel a kind of heat that felt more like a sunburn than regular heat. I don't sunburn easily, but I can feel it when the UV levels are high. I cannot rationally explain it but I'm usually right.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Your microwave is way more 'dangerous' than any computer. It cooks things ffs.

Not to mention that not all EM waves are created equal. Microwaves are only dangerous because they can cook you, but they're not radioactive in the same way that plutonium is for example. 

Waves from a modern computer are not typically ionizing. Ionizing waves are different and a lot more dangerous because they do things like break your molecular bonds and displace electrons. CRTs emit a tiny amount of this kind of radiation but it's hardly enough to hurt you.

Edit:
Not to mention a hot oven produces way more harmful EM waves than your computer does. So does the power plant that gets the electricity to your computer in the first place.

Edit edit:
Also EM waves that are intense enough to cook you are also intense enough to raise your body temp to a measurable degree, or actually cause burns. If it's not doing that then it is no worse than ambient heat.

Eye strain and such is a danger but that has to do with not giving your body the rest it needs, not EM waves.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Also exposing rats to blue light for 9 days and then concluding that blue light is harmful because they were damaged is like overfeeding them for 9 days and concluding that food is harmful because they got fat.

Being exposed to excessive levels of anything will hurt you. I know that's a cliche but this time it truly applies. We cannot unilaterally say that "blue light is harmful" without logically concluding that food is also harmful. 

What they should be really saying is that people look at their computers too much.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

RobynC said:


> they can tell an mac from a PC laptop 5 miles away.


Some stuff sounds good in a script, but isn't very plausible. But yes, provided you had a good way of filtering out all ambient noise, you could, at least theoretically, pick up the wireless signals from a laptop if you had line-of-sight to it. If you can sniff out enough of the traffic and decrypt it, you should also be able to tell from the content what operating system it was running. But I highly doubt that this is something you can do en masse and without spending a lot of resources on each device you're monitoring, as long as the network protocols aren't compromised. 



RobynC said:


> I've had a PC (a fairly modern one) on my lap a long time and I've had moments where I could feel a kind of heat that felt more like a sunburn than regular heat.


That would probably be heat damage to the tissue in your lap rather than something caused by EM emissions. The CPU and GPU in your computer may easily get hot enough to actually cause burns. Even at normal operating temperatures, they get warm enough that extended, unprotected exposure to some computer shells may slow-cook superficial tissue. I've had a similar thing happen to the palms of my hands after riding for several hours with the handle bar heaters on, on my bike.
The simple fix is to a) not put your laptop in your actual lap, or b) wear a bit thicker pants when you do.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

yet another intj said:


> Maybe you better Google to learn the difference between "The EMF measurements of an entire device" and variables like "voltage/current/intended mains frequency" of it's power supply.


Fair enough, I accept full incorrectness. I just had to fire out a sharp response - RobynC's questions on here can really get on one's nerves. I'm yet to know why someone would ask such things on a forum mainly dedicated to the categorisation of human personalities. Specially given how obvious it is that she hasn't done a jot of internet searching herself first. Truly amazes me. This isn't the first thread of this ilk.



> HAL said:
> 
> 
> > All devices are, in the end, heaters.
> ...


Planck constant? 

Um, all devices _are_ heaters. Even a simple fan, designed to cool you down, will in fact heat up a closed room in enough time. All energy finishes as heat. 



> Even visible light from a blue power indicator LED can seriously damage your eye and even fuck up your metabolic cycles.
> 
> Let me know if you would like to discuss the microwave spectrum separately?


A bit condescending, no?

What's to discuss about the microwave spectrum, especially?



> You can also cut steel bars with 1,5 volts if you can provide enough current. So, don't rely on a particular variable to assume what is safe or dangerous.


Eh? Who was relying on a single variable? What's this about 1.5 volts cutting steel bars? No laptop will ever be designed to use currents that can cut steel bars. Also, 1.5 volts at any amperage will never do anything other than, I dunno, cut steel bars. You can't use 1.5V to produce dangerous radiation, ever.



> By the way, an average CCFL inverter of any laptop operates near kilo-volts range.


Near kilo-volts range..? I don't think my laptop is anything special but it takes 240V in at 1.7A and sends 20V out at 3A. And even at those energies, nothing dangerous can happen other than giving an electric shock. To produce ionising radiation you need a material to bounce the electrons off with the correct atomic configuration. I think hospital X-rays use tungsten or molybdenum, for example. I'm pretty sure laptops won't be built with slabs of tungsten or molybdenum in them..!

As I said before, all they produce is heat, light and weak microwaves. The only hazard is in the screen and the wifi/bluetooth/whatever transmitters, which all use visible light, radio or microwaves, and not at high enough levels to cause thermal heating. You'd need a real freak accident for your laptop to suddenly send out radiation that causes physical harm. But then there are loads of things that could cause you harm via a freak accident...


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

HAL said:


> Fair enough, I accept full incorrectness. I just had to fire out a sharp response - RobynC's questions on here can really get on one's nerves. I'm yet to know why someone would ask such things on a forum mainly dedicated to the categorisation of human personalities.


Just check where you are right now... Community > Topics of Interest > Science and Technology.
Indeed, this forum is mainly dedicated to MBTI yet we also have threads like "_What Song Are You Listening To Now?_". Those threads have their own sections and they are legitimate, even encouraged by moderation. Feel free to ignore them and avoid that kind of participation if you want to limit yourself with MBTI only. The rest will be criticizing McDonald's for also selling ice cream, besides criticizing the quality of yet another product.



HAL said:


> Specially given how obvious it is that she hasn't done a jot of internet searching herself first. Truly amazes me. This isn't the first thread of this ilk.


Ironic... You recommended him to check the power adapter. Which means, if you were him, you would probably Google the wrong thing for further information. Because you are not practical enough to ask different opinions in here, the technology section of an MBTI forum.



HAL said:


> Planck constant?


Okay, let me push you some more until you bump your nose.

Black-body Radiation



HAL said:


> Um, all devices _are_ heaters. Even a simple fan, designed to cool you down, will in fact heat up a closed room in enough time. All energy finishes as heat.


Yeah, some of them can heat up a room in millions of years only if it's a ridiculously well isolated vacuum chamber. That's why we are wasting shit load of money to heat up our houses while also wasting some more to cool down our electronics. Surprisingly we are not baked alive and our electronics are still operating properly... What kind of sorcery is this?



HAL said:


> A bit condescending, no?
> 
> What's to discuss about the microwave spectrum, especially?


I corrected your lack of knowledge with external/scientific data. Not because I know everything but I noticed you are spreading misinformation with generalizations. Even low energy release can easily/permanently injure you in a real world scenario. Blue/visible light spectrum, right angle of exposure/duration without proper environmental lighting is a good example. They are ridiculously common/popular, it's nothing but electromagnetic radiation emitted by hundreds of miliwatts. There are no gamma rays yet it's damaging your vision faster and even more seriously.



HAL said:


> Eh? Who was relying on a single variable? What's this about 1.5 volts cutting steel bars? No laptop will ever be designed to use currents that can cut steel bars. Also, 1.5 volts at any amperage will never do anything other than, I dunno, cut steel bars. You can't use 1.5V to produce dangerous radiation, ever.


You are... "_I dunno, X-rays or gamma rays. But they take thousands of volts to produce. Computers don't produce dangerous radiation._"

_X-Rays _are not safe or dangerous without considering the dosage and the exposed individual for sure. By the way, computers manufactured by Apple from that era were using CRTs. Which operates in "several" kilovolts range while swallowing many amperes and also leaks a reasonable amount of X-Rays... Indeed, you sound like "dunno". I already explained that you should consider anything and everything, from the age of device, to the quality of grounding at home for predicting electromagnetic properties.



HAL said:


> Near kilo-volts range..? I don't think my laptop is anything special but it takes 240V in at 1.7A and sends 20V out at 3A.


A taser can burn your skin, bruise your muscles and even kill you by casing cardiac arrhythmia by "drawing less than an ampere from a 9 volts battery".

Breakdown Voltage

I wish you could study Faraday's law of induction before salvaging practical wisdom by superficially taking a look at whatever SMPS. So, maybe you could end up realizing that it's already a high voltage device. Even if they don't bother informing consumers about input rectifier, inverter, voltage converter, output rectifier and regulation stages. All you care is what goes in and what goes out. The thing is, electromagnetic problems are caused by what's happening during "the magic" and engineers are still struggling with simplest layouts to keep parasitics tolerable. Those shit are even acoustically humming, besides creating serious levels of electromagnetic interference with sensitive receivers. That's the best case scenario when they are refined enough to work properly.



HAL said:


> And even at those energies, nothing dangerous can happen other than giving an electric shock.


High voltages/Variable frequencies = Stronger electromagnetic fields that can resonate with/penetrate into different materials. Assuming that nothing dangerous can happen is ridiculous as claiming they will be used for mind control and shit. It's still a serious concern and there are many serious studies about it's half-understood potential. We already have many bleak/depressing discoveries about how they are somewhat affecting plants, animals and eventually human biology.



HAL said:


> To produce ionising radiation you need a material to bounce the electrons off with the correct atomic configuration. I think hospital X-rays use tungsten or molybdenum, for example. I'm pretty sure laptops won't be built with slabs of tungsten or molybdenum in them..!


Once again, you are "painfully" driven by Ti.

"_X happens because of Y with this one. So, everything that possibly harmful should contain Y._"

Ionizing radiation is not the only way to damage living cells even if it's the most fancy and grotesque way. You are practically considering non-ionizing radiation safe for everybody under every possible condition.



HAL said:


> As I said before, all they produce is heat, light and weak microwaves. The only hazard is in the screen and the wifi/bluetooth/whatever transmitters, which all use visible light, radio or microwaves, and not at high enough levels to cause thermal heating.


I concur and already stated that wireless networks are a mess as the most remarkable difference between old and new. After all, I'm still trying to understand the real reason behind your awkward obsession with dielectric heating.



HAL said:


> You'd need a real freak accident for your laptop to suddenly send out radiation that causes physical harm. But then there are loads of things that could cause you harm via a freak accident...


Damage to cellular DNA is mostly the result of cumulative effects. Yes, you will be alive right after you turn it on and it's not going to boil your brain. The thing is, some of us wants to see their 60s without suffering from some mysterious autoimmune disorders/enzyme deficiencies.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

RobynC said:


> @*zynthaxx*
> This would require some significantly advanced signal processing capability?


Very good antennas, very good ability to filter out ambient noise, possibly also a very good signal source (which you can never trust the target to have, as an eavesdropper). Doing this in a rural area with no other transmitters nearby is probably a lot more viable than doing it in downtown Manhattan, for example.



RobynC said:


> True, but many doubted the NSA could monitor and archive all our phone and e-mail calls but


Archive? Yes. Monitor superficially when there's a well-known threat profile? Yes. Automagically predict threats based on mail, phone call or SMS contents? Obviously not nearly well enough. Basically what they seem to have the resources to do, is to dig out evidence after the fact, when at least some of the people involved have been identified. The step from there to identifying with which people they've been in touch isn't long. But we're not at a point (and probably won't be for a long time) where the Minority Report theme of predicting crime is viable.


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

RobynC said:


> @*zynthaxx*
> 
> There is truth to that
> 
> ...


It is funny you say that, because having a father working in the police sector ever since i was born, we've always been aware of the fact that our calls/messages/accessed sites on internet can be accessed if needed. It's no secret in the country where i live now and in Europe in general people are aware of some things. Some kinda go along with it to a certain degree in the sense that, it;s like, nothing can happen unless you do illegal shit. Just sayin', it would be horribly uninteresting and boring wouldn't it, to go at it pointlessly? ) Maybe they can't access everything though. Unless they really need to take some cool internet stuff and idea suggestions to read from PROs  Or they might be bored of their own pornhub videos. 

But the fact that you do not have absolute privacy, oh yea. You don't. Think about the cookies and data/tracking elements left on your phone even after deleting a certain app. 

They implemented camera and voice recording in devices smaller than a fly (nanotechnology) and are capable of zooming in clusters of galaxies and receiving information from satellites outside the Solar System, and yet they cannot find a plane with people or make phones with batteries that last longer than half a day with internet.

I just say this, start questioning certain aspects from society guys. And the paths or trends that other people BUT NOT you want you to follow.

About the electromagnetic emission some modern devices might actually be worse than older ones or maybe just the numbers of devices that release it increased dramatically and specialists talk about electromagnetic radiation pollution ^^ We already know it affects sleep patterns, metabolism and things like these. Idk about the original question though


----------



## Tortoise20 (Aug 12, 2016)

how much electromagnetic energy could an electromagnet energy if an electromagnet could electromagnetic energy?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

RobynC said:


> @HAL
> 
> Mostly I was curious as to what wavelengths of energy are put out and what kind of radiation hazard older computers pose compared to modern ones.
> 
> ...


 As always, there's an XKCD about that: https://xkcd.com/radiation/


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Aarya



> They implemented camera and voice recording in devices smaller than a fly (nanotechnology)


When and where?


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

RobynC said:


> @Aarya
> 
> When and where?


I saw a documentary some years ago, but logically speaking, if we are able to build satellites that could potentially navigate so far away (Voyager-1), make projects for humans to live on Mars and create tracking devices or simple computers as small as a dust grain (Scary Small: New Tracking Chip Size of a Dust Grain & https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...e-computer-thats-smaller-than-a-grain-of-sand), the thought of integrating a recording device simply doesn't seem like the challenging part here anymore. 

You can read about Pentagon’s DARPA progresses in nanotechnology, and about the newest addition in genetic coding and engineering, CRISPR.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Aarya



> It's no secret in the country where i live now and in Europe in general people are aware of some things. Some kinda go along with it to a certain degree in the sense that, it;s like, nothing can happen unless you do illegal shit.


That's not always true, innocent people have been caught up in stuff like that for a variety of reasons.



> But the fact that you do not have absolute privacy, oh yea. You don't. Think about the cookies and data/tracking elements left on your phone even after deleting a certain app.


However, while powerful people say "privacy is dead", they have often bought up loads of land in isolated locations to purchase for themselves, the privacy they deny others.





> I just say this, start questioning certain aspects from society guys. And the paths or trends that other people BUT NOT you want you to follow.


Of course



> About the electromagnetic emission some modern devices might actually be worse than older ones or maybe just the numbers of devices that release it increased dramatically and specialists talk about electromagnetic radiation pollution ^^ We already know it affects sleep patterns, metabolism and things like these.


Fascinating




> I saw a documentary some years ago, but logically speaking, if we are able to build satellites that could potentially navigate so far away (Voyager-1), make projects for humans to live on Mars and create tracking devices or simple computers as small as a dust grain (Scary Small: New Tracking Chip Size of a Dust Grain & https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-grain-of-sand), the thought of integrating a recording device simply doesn't seem like the challenging part here anymore.


Probably not 



> You can read about Pentagon’s DARPA progresses in nanotechnology, and about the newest addition in genetic coding and engineering, CRISPR.


Of course


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@yet another intj



> Input could be around AC 230V @ 50-60 Hz, according to your region/standards. Having AC as mains electricity (while we are dealing with shit load of DC chargers for pretty much everything) is nothing but a consensus on optimal values reduce transmission and distribution losses.


Yes, but then what is the typical *output*?
@Zynthraxx



> Very good antennas, very good ability to filter out ambient noise, possibly also a very good signal source (which you can never trust the target to have, as an eavesdropper). Doing this in a rural area with no other transmitters nearby is probably a lot more viable than doing it in downtown Manhattan, for example.


Makes enough sense


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

How does the output of a human brain compare?


----------

