Return to the thumbnail page Display/hide file information See previous file

Three AEG Koffer 150 fixture with arms paramently mounted to a cellular transmitter tower

Three AEG Koffer 150 fixture with arms paramently mounted to a cellular transmitter tower

Click to view full size image

This photo was photographed at the parking lot of Carmel hospital. These three HPS AEG Koffer 150 fixture are paramently mounted to a transmitter tower for 3rd and 3.5 generation cellular phones. I think this transmitter tower (like the other ones in Haifa and in Israel at all) are even more uglier then the transmitter lampposts in the picture of the user "sparkie": http://www.lighting-gallery.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1569&pos=1.

IMG_0853.jpg IMG_0699.jpg IMG_0558.jpg IMG_0203.jpg

File information

File information

Download: Download this File
Filename:IMG_0203.jpg
Album name:dor123 / Unusual lighting
Keywords:Lanterns
File Size:33 KB
Date added:Apr 11, 2010
Dimensions:1024 x 768 pixels
Displayed:886 times
URL:https://www.lighting-gallery.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-43685
Favorites:Add to Favorites
Comments
Santaarnpaal
Jr. Member
**
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 64
View Gallery


View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM Author: Santaarnpaal
It looks much better than a standard transmitter tower.
magslight
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 121
View Gallery


View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 11, 2010 at 12:37 PM Author: magslight
dor123
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2587
View Gallery
Other loves are computers, office equipment, A/Cs


View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 11, 2010 at 01:03 PM Author: dor123
Santaarnpaal: Are you sure? These are the exactly the transmitter towers that caused the noise in the Israelis media and even public demonstrations, as people thinking that their microwave radiation may cause cancer. All of these transmitter tower for 3rd generation cellular phones are a totally private equipment of the three israelis cellular companies (Phelephone, Cellcom and Partner [Under the Orange brand]). Many of them were installed illegaly and produce way more radiation then the allowed at the radiation standard for transmitting towers in Israel.

I"m don't speak English well, and rely on online translating to write in this site.
Please forgive me if my choice of my words looks like offensive, while that isn't my intention.

I only working with the European date format (dd.mm.yyyy).

I lives in Israel, which is a 230-240V, 50hz country.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4333
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 11, 2010 at 01:34 PM Author: Medved
I think too, this is way better then stand-alone transmitting towers. Both structures are more-less disturbing, so in this way at least their total amount is reduced...

And activists would always demonstrate against these BTS, but a minute later send unpublishable words to mobile operators, as they phone loose signal at some place...
There are always people, who "want to save the world" by pointing to some "enemy". Sometimes the "enemy" are mobile phone BTS, sometimes mercury vapor and sometimes incandescents lamps,...

No more selfballasted c***

f36t8
Jr. Member
**
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 57
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 11, 2010 at 02:07 PM Author: f36t8
What the protesters don't seem to understand is that the field strength from a transmitter decreases very rapidly when the distance from it increases because of the inverse square law and that the field strength around a cell phone is much greater (hundreds, thousands or even millions of times) than that from the towers themselves.

Modern cell phones reduce their already low transmitting power when the reception is better, so denser towers may actually lower the radiation exposure for the users.
dor123
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2587
View Gallery
Other loves are computers, office equipment, A/Cs


View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 12, 2010 at 02:13 AM Author: dor123
Note that these cellular transmitter towers are ONLY transmits signals for 3rd cellular activity such as internet, social networks (Such as Facebook, Twitter), email, instant messanging and most of the applications that require a large bandwidths of at least depends on a bandwidth, for example in the iPhone (Calling to each other in a cellular phones don't depends on a bandwidth at all). These transmitting tower are totally not related to calls between each other. For calls there are the regular cellular stations with much smaller and less radiating transmitters that may even operates at the radio frequency and not the microwave frequency.

I"m don't speak English well, and rely on online translating to write in this site.
Please forgive me if my choice of my words looks like offensive, while that isn't my intention.

I only working with the European date format (dd.mm.yyyy).

I lives in Israel, which is a 230-240V, 50hz country.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4333
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 14, 2010 at 01:21 PM Author: Medved
The "microwave" actually IS radio frequency, include their side effects, however the frequency dependencies change their relative importance:
On higher frequency, non-thermal effects on the life (those suspected for correlation of cancers) are actually smaller then lower frequency, as higher frequency does not penetrate as deep (practically below the skin surface).
And even thermal effects are with higher frequencies located only on the skin, what is quite temperature insensitive organ (compare to others).
And again here is valid, more transmitters => shorter distances => way less power required => way lower exposure levels.

I'm sorry, but these activists really do not know, what they are talking about...

No more selfballasted c***

dor123
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2587
View Gallery
Other loves are computers, office equipment, A/Cs


View Profile WWW Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 15, 2010 at 02:34 AM Author: dor123
I think most of the transmitters in Israel are not situated with the radiation standards. Also this is illegal in Israel to install a transmitters on tenements. Also i think many of the cellular transmitters in Israel have a fixed amount of radiation power that can only manually changed.

I"m don't speak English well, and rely on online translating to write in this site.
Please forgive me if my choice of my words looks like offensive, while that isn't my intention.

I only working with the European date format (dd.mm.yyyy).

I lives in Israel, which is a 230-240V, 50hz country.

Roi_hartmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 421
View Gallery


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 15, 2010 at 05:44 AM Author: Roi_hartmann
I know one case where a worker got permanent eye damage because he was working directly infront of active GMS antenna in a radio mast.
It was kind of an accident, Other worker shut down the BTS before "top-man" moved to working infront of antenna. The "top-man" did not have a EMR-meter with him(even thought it was required in the working safety instructions.). Normaly there would not be any danger if everything would went as they planned but they later discovered that the antenna was not inactive. There was error in the layout of the mast(where is described wich antenna is owned by who and other that sort of stuff) and they have turned of wrong BTS. even thought the power of one GMS cell is very low compared to many TV or radio transmitters the distance was very short. The worker got no any money from the company because he had violated safety instructions and because the doctors point of view was that there is no any scientifict proof about the danger of low power electromagnetic radiation.

Aamulla aurinko, illalla AIRAM

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4333
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 15, 2010 at 09:55 AM Author: Medved
The eye is the thermally most sensitive organ on body surface in terms of possible damage (the liquid circulation is very poor trough it's volume), so i would say it was thermal damage - danger only if the radiation power exceed some level and the time is long enough for the exposed tissue to warm up (what might be when spending longer time in the near field of the antenna). But such level is not possible to reach in few meters from the antenna with sub-100W ERP transmitter (all short range and most longer range BTS are of such power levels)...

No more selfballasted c***

Roi_hartmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 421
View Gallery


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 15, 2010 at 11:36 AM Author: Roi_hartmann
Yes the workers eye damage had something to do with the blood vessels in the eyes but I dont remember any medical term for that.

If I remember right. typical output power of one trx is something between 50W to 10W. Old folks of the comapany told me stories about how they were working in proximity of hight power VHF antennas long time ago when the RF safety was not observed almost at all. They told me that when they started feeling too cold(it was winter) they take a break and sit above the VHF antennas to warm up. They even told me that the wrecnh they had in pocket warmed up too. I dont know if the story is true but if it is that pretty wild thing. I also have heard about other accident where multiple 10 000 TPO watt transmitters were switched on too early. There were still men doing work in very close proximity of UHF antennas. Luckily those transmitters had klystron PA so no full power was immediately avaiable. workmens quickly discovered that transmitters were back on and they quickly move away from antennas. Poor workmen still had burns.

I do allways wear RF meter with me when working near active antennas or when there is possibility to get "radiated". Sometimes when quickly passing near high power antennas I have touched some antennas and yes those are warm. Ofcourse that could be due to the loses.

Aamulla aurinko, illalla AIRAM

SeanB~1
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 233
View Gallery


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 15, 2010 at 01:42 PM Author: SeanB~1
I used to work occasionally with pulsed RADAR, with a ERP of a few kW. The test bench was a closed cell absorber made from graphite loaded foam, that would smoke when you placed new sections in, as the old ones fell apart from the power. The test load for the magnetrons was a tapered waveguide stub that was filled with an iron filing loaded epoxy. This could get red hot if you ran full power for a few minutes on test. Our biggest safety concern was not the RF output, it was the high voltages that powered the magnetron and the TR switches. I had a insulation tester that had an open circuit voltage of 4kV, useless for most mains wiring, and still would not find all leakage in the driver circuits, which were all silicone encapsulated to reduce leakage and arcing.

Mobile masts are most likely safe, you are pretty far from them, and probably get more radiation from sunlight than the masts in most cases. The bigger source is the phone itself, those flashing light mobile stick ons are powered from the RF output by the phone, not the power from the mast.
Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4333
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 16, 2010 at 07:36 AM Author: Medved
RADAR with ERP in only kW range? What was it's purpose?
As far as i know, most of them use very narrow beam, high gain antenna, so with 1kW magnetron the ERP in 10's MW range. And passive air traffic radars use magnetrons in MW range (pulsed, of course) and antenna with less then 1deg angle, what lead above 50GW ERP...

No more selfballasted c***

Roi_hartmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 421
View Gallery


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 16, 2010 at 08:42 AM Author: Roi_hartmann
Here is the biggest power suply that I have ever seen: http://www.whitenightcape.com/IMG_8488.JPG It is main transformer for PYE-TVT analog 10kW TV transmitter(dont remember exact model) I dont remember how much voltage it did have. its over 1 meter tall. It took over 30 minutes to warm up this transmitter to contidion where it could transmit(in total offline state, not standby) the PA was liquid cooled klystron. There was little 11W PL-S undercabine fixture installed inside the transmitter for service light. I thought that maybe bare fluorescent lamp would be enought in PA side if there would be enought RF-leak.

Aamulla aurinko, illalla AIRAM

SeanB~1
Full Member
***
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 233
View Gallery


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM Author: SeanB~1
Medved, aircraft do have some minor issues with power, and an airborne RADAR is generally low power, and has to fit in a very confined space with some rather harsh environmental issues. Think of temperature range of -55C to 150C, and no real ability to cool high power parts other than to the frame. Add to this vibration, rapid temperature swings and gradients along with high stress maneuvers, and these units still did a good few hours between services.

Roi_hartmann that is a big power supply! As big as the 28VDC supply our workshop complex had, it was rated to supply 28V at 1600A, to enable the engine bay to start 2 09K50 engines at once on test benches. OHSA came around one day and measured noise level at full bore in the test bay at over 130dB..... nO wonder I am slightly deaf.
Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4333
View Gallery

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Apr 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM Author: Medved
@SeanB: I didn't knew it was onboard radar.
But even there, 1kW ERP would be no more then few W transmitted power, assume (in radar metrics) quite wide beam of the nose antenna - didn't you mean 1kW pulsed output of the magnetron?

Definition: ERP is equivalent output of a imaginary transmitter with non-direcional (full-sphere) radiation pattern (such antenna is even not possible to make) to excite the same far field as the real device in the interested direction (so for the radar in the center of the main antenna beam), so unless the antenna is highly lossy (convert most of the energy to heat), the ERP is way higher then real transmitter output power. And as radar antennas are designed to be low loss narrow beam, they have high gain, so the ERP/real power ratio {so antenna gain} would by far exceed 10000 (=40dB; really low value for radar)

No more selfballasted c***

© 2005-2019 Lighting-Gallery.net | Powered by: Coppermine Photo Gallery