Serious Cell Phone Radiation Protection?

[steenkh]

A friend of mine actually knows the people behind this product, and assures me that these are real scientists, and honest people. Yet, when I read about the claims and description of the EMX Biochip, all my alarm bells are ringing:

These electromagnetic fields and radiation produced by cell phones and electronic devices produce physiological stress on cells, chromosome damage, hormone changes, enzyme changes, and cause cell growth abnormalities.
[.. snip ..]
n response to this danger, we have developed the EMX BioChip™, a patented microchip technology that counteracts the harmful effects of cell phone radiation and electromagnetic fields(EMF) generated by devices such as mobile phones, personal computers, hair-dryers, wireless technologies, medical equipment, and even cars.

The EMX BioChip™ is the ONLY scientifically-proven safety solution that addresses the root causes and harmful effects of cell phone radiation and EMF. During the past twelve years, extensive research by the United States military and various universities in North America, Europe, and China have tested our technology and found it capable of completely eliminating EMF and cell phone radiation–induced bioeffects in living systems.

There is lots and lots of talk about the harmful effects of EMF radiation. The actual working of the EMX technology is described like this:

This knowledge gave birth to the EMX Technology. By adding a specially designed fluctuating Noise Field (EMX Bioprotection field) to the existing field and, thereby, creating a natural pattern, the body will perceive the sum of the fields as being random and the exposure will become completely neutral to the cellular system. The noise field brings the EMF field from the electronic devices back to that found in nature.

All this talk about creating "natural" patterns in EMF fields seems strange to me, and I would also expect a noise field introduced close to a cell phone to interfere with the operation of the cell phone.

When I search Google, I find a paper by the same people, but apparently presented at a conference sponsored by the WHO: The EMF Biochip™Technology- Neutralizing the Effects of EMF Field

Could somebody with more knowledge about these matters please evaluate if this is clever or fraud?

 

[Dazed]

Probably fraud.. good catch.

 

[MortFurd]

Could somebody with more knowledge about these matters please evaluate if this is clever or fraud?

Looks like self deluded BS. In order to "mask" a cellphone signal, you're going to need a masking signal that has a power level approximating the level of the signal you want to mask. With a cell phone, that means you'd have to match its power output. Doing so with a battery powered device would cut your talk time in half - a side effect that would be noticed and not happily accepted by users.

I notice that the site provides absolutely zero information on how the masking signal is generated - nothing about how the chip is designed or how it actually does its job. Just vague waffling about it protecting you from the evil emf.


Where can I find a BS meter gif?

 

[The Atheist]

 

[The Atheist]

You won't be able to use that one after this thread. EMF myths actually destroy BS meters, they are so potent. I took a $600 one apart a few years back. It contained one taut spring inside an opaque plastic casing. (No it wasn't my $600.)

Or, you can wear this stylish accessory to ward off evil EMFs (are they more evil because they contain the initials "MF"?

 

[Grimoire]

Doing so with a battery powered device would cut your talk time in half - a side effect that would be noticed and not happily accepted by users.

Not to mention the constant dropped calls as it would distort the cell phone signal.

Oh, and I found your BS meter...

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry, forgot to address the OP:

FRAUD

 

[TjW]

Fraud.

 

[casebro]

Other than the fact that MF's of those scales have never been shown to be harmful, it is possible to shield an ac field by using a very much smaller dc field. Many variable power sources to that. I had a 500 amp welder that controlled it's out put with a 5v dc field that used a 1 amp fuse. Thats 15,000 watt output controlled by a 5 watt field. It would cut the output by about 90%- that was as low as a welder is practical. That's basically a dc field between the transmitter (primary of transformer) and the receiver (secondary windings). I suppose the windings for the dc field would neeed to look about like a dinner plate to protect your brain.

But I don't know how well a cell phone would work in the field either. Anybody want to try frying their cell phone next to a big horseshoe magnet? I know a a permanent magnet will sure screw up a monitor. Makes pretty pictures though.

 

[casebro]

Wouldn't the same system protect from radiation from nuclear stuff? A battery power 'net' over a container of nuclear waste? It's all EMF, just in the...um... gamma, x-ray, etc ranges?

Pardon me while I make a run the the patent office. Be back shortly.

 

[Verde]

[] it is possible to shield an ac field by using a very much smaller dc field. Many variable power sources to that. I had a 500 amp welder that controlled it's out put with a 5v dc field that used a 1 amp fuse. Thats 15,000 watt output controlled by a 5 watt field. It would cut the output by about 90%- that was as low as a welder is practical.
[]

What you are describing is a standard electronic control circuit. It has nothing to do with either fields or shielding.

You can generate a static electric field, and/or a static magnetic field.
You can also generate an alternating electric field, which inherently produces an alternating magnetic field, and vice versa.
The concept that a static ('DC') field can somehow shield an alternating ('AC') field is complete nonsense.

Oh, and the subject of the OP is utter bunk.

 

[casebro]

Verde, splain this to me, from here:

http://www.butlerwinding.com/elelectronic-transformer/mag-amp.html

"A typical simple mag amp contains two identical coils, each having identical high permeability square loop magnetic cores and each wound with an identical winding not shared with the other coil. An alternating voltage source is connected to one end of these windings and a load is connected to the other end. The windings are either connected in series or in parallel such that the cores’ magnetic flux generated by the alternating voltage are out of phase (in opposite directions). Alternating current (A.C.) will flow through these windings. Either a shared second winding is wound on both coils or each coil is wound with a second identical winding. In the latter case the windings are series connected such that a direct current (D.C.) flowing through these windings generate magnetic flux in the cores, which are in phase (in the same direction). These windings are connected to a variable D.C. current source (which might consist of series connected D.C. voltage source and a variable resistor). The D.C. winding(s) is (are) referred to as the control winding(s). Schematic representations of two typical mag amps are given in Figures 1 and 2 further below. The mag amps shown may also be referred to in literature as a type of saturable reactor. A mag amp may also be referred to in literature as a type of transductor"

The DC flux interferes with the MF, right?

I might not have the theory exactly right, but I know how I traced the wires in that welder.

 

[marting]

Casebro,

Mag amplifiers are/were pretty common but they don't work by shielding an EMI field with DC. They work by changing the permeability of a magnetic couplig core by biasing the core with a magnetic flux to the point it saturates thus reducing the AC coupled magnetic field.

The description of the EMX chip is technical gobbledegook.

 

[marting]

Rather, the description of the EMX chip in the original post was technical gobbledegook.

What the company is actually claiming has nothing to do with cell phones per se (the cell phone RF) but with the very low frequency magnetic fields associated with battery power/current fluctuations. They postulate that fixed frequency magnetic fields are harmful but that random fields are not and that they mitigate whatever harm might be produced by fixed freq mag fields.

Of course the idea that their "Technology" is somehow required for cell phones should this prove true is specious. Low freq mag fields are easy to control by fairly simple design criteria. Much simpler in fact than generalized unwanted EMI.

 

[steenkh]

Rather, the description of the EMX chip in the original post was technical gobbledegook.

What the company is actually claiming has nothing to do with cell phones per se (the cell phone RF) but with the very low frequency magnetic fields associated with battery power/current fluctuations. They postulate that fixed frequency magnetic fields are harmful but that random fields are not and that they mitigate whatever harm might be produced by fixed freq mag fields.

So it is the popularized version on their website that is technical gobbledegook, but their actual product might have potential, although it is doubtful that cell phones will benefit?

 

[CFLarsen]

Roger and me...

 

[bjb]

Magnetic amplifiers are interesting devices, but they're not good at high frequencies. The magnetic material used in the core causes losses at higher frequencies. A practical limit for the material is 20-50kHz, which is well below the frequencies used by cell phones. There are some magnetic materials used at much higher frequencies, but these are signal level applications so the design can tolerate more core losses than a high-power application. Magamps themselves are most often used in power supplies. It's been a long time since I've dealt with them but I recall they were used for low frequencies, a few hundred Hz at most. If anyone says they are using magamp principles to control cell phone frequencies, they're definitely lying to you.

 

[marting]

Magnetic amplifiers are interesting devices, but they're not good at high frequencies. The magnetic material used in the core causes losses at higher frequencies. A practical limit for the material is 20-50kHz, which is well below the frequencies used by cell phones. There are some magnetic materials used at much higher frequencies, but these are signal level applications so the design can tolerate more core losses than a high-power application. Magamps themselves are most often used in power supplies. It's been a long time since I've dealt with them but I recall they were used for low frequencies, a few hundred Hz at most. If anyone says they are using magamp principles to control cell phone frequencies, they're definitely lying to you.

Magnetic amps are assymetrical. One side, the controlled side, can operate at very high frequences, the controller side (the side that drives the magnetic material to saturation) operates at much lower freqs.

Magnetic amps and their theory have nothing to do with the EMX, er, "Technology."

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmmmokay.

Let's look at the facts (some of this is a bit technical):

1) A number of researchers report varying effects from various kinds of fields on various kinds of biological processes. The EMX people reference a lot of this work, although it is not evident how relevant it all is. I have not reviewed any of those reports.

2) An established method of mitigating EMI (electromagnetic interference) is to introduce a random frequency modulation. This is because EMI regulations deal with narrow-band values. And the reason for that is twofold: It is the only feasible way to measure it. It is, in most cases, what counts because most susceptible equipment is also narrow-band. The induced frequency-jitter thus distributes the emissions in the frequency-domain and gives you a lower reading for the same energy. It is important to note, however, that this has nothing to do with biological effects and is not obtained by an independent sourde, but by modulating the original source.

3) Intensive research has so far failed to prove any practical effects from EMI exposure within approved levels.

Now for the material:

The article

When I search Google, I find a paper by the same people, but apparently presented at a conference sponsored by the WHO: The EMF Biochip™Technology- Neutralizing the Effects of EMF Field

is somewhat odd. While it has a nice scientific look, there is a distinct woo scent to the details. Interesting that Claus should point to the old article about Coghill, because this one has some misrepresentations reminiscent of Coghill:

The 60 Hz EMF field used in these studies is within the so called extremely low frequency field (ELF) range (0 – 1,000 Hertz), but further research done by CUA also showed that the whole spectrum up to visible light, i.e. ELF, Radio frequency (RF) (1,000 Hertz – 0,8 Ghertz) and ELF Microwave, 0,8 Ghertz – 1 Ghertz) cause the same effects and responds equally to
the EMX Noise field technology.

There is an enormous gap from 1Ghz to visible light. Seems they forget something here.

Then this:

a) Energy: The element of the EMF field, which can promote the biological effect via direct
cell damage.

The power of EMF fields carrying high energy (number of photons higher than visible light) ...
​

​

Below visible light the fields carry a lower number of photons and thereby do not containpower enough to damage, in which case the fields are called non-ionizing; ..

BZZZT! It is not the number of photons that change, it is the energy of the individual photons.

Note also the reference to energy. Now comes:
​

b) Intensity: The element of the EMF field, which can promote the biological effect via
thermal damage.
EMF fields carrying a high intensity (number of waves) above 10 watts/kg SAR (Standard Absorption rate) can heat up and ultimately damage the cell by directly raising its temperature. This is the case inside a microwave oven dedicated to cooking tissues.

This is what is properly called the power of the field (and field is not really a proper term), but it has nothing to do with the number of waves, that pertains, at best, to the frequency, and the ability to impart heat is the product of the time and power, which gives the energy (but not necessarily connected to the energy of the individul photons, which is a function of frequency).

The point of all this is that in an erie Coghill-like way, they seem to have only a partial grasp on electromagnetic theory.

Now to the chase:

Based on some specialized research that seems to indicate a link between the structure of certain very low frequency EMF exposures to certain biological functions, they make the inference that introducing a noise signal from a separate source will mitigate alleged (but not proven) ill effects of all kinds of EMF exposure.

There are several problems with this scenario:

1) The inference from ELF fields to the entire spectrum is unfounded.

2) Obviously, the signal that should drown a 50Hz field in noise is much different from that which would do the same to a cellphone signal which has a frequency that is a 100,000 times higher.

3) Since we are exposed to a wide spectrum of different radiations it is a little difficult to understand how this cacophony of signals are not already sufficient noise.

4) Since one waveform does not interfere with another, it is not evident how any effect should be obtained from a source different from the source to be mitigated.

5) Any noise-inducing source must have a power-level comparable to that of the signal it attempts to affect, and this would raise serious EMI issues.

Actually, I would think one angle of attack would be to ask these people to document their EMI approvals.

In conclusion, I call fraud:

- The presented scientific background is of doubtful relevance.
- The explanations for the mode of action are vague and technically imprecise.
- The practical problems seem not addressed.

Of course, it would be useful to check on the patents they claim to have, but I have no time for that at present.​

​

​

Hans​

 

[steenkh]

Thank you very much, Hans! I find it especially interesting that this technique should cause EMI-emission problems, if it had worked.

Many of us think Roger Coghill when we see ideas like these, and like mr. Coghill visits all conferences that he can, I also get the impression that htese people turn up at every conference, like the WHO-sponsored conference that they refer to. Strengely, I have not seen any critique, or just mention of their findings outside EMX BioChip's pages themselves.

I now wonder how I should present this to my friend.