Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Doesn't fit in a category? It does now.
Post Reply
User avatar
techoptimist
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:13 am
Contact:

Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by techoptimist » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:25 pm

My occupational health experiences in 2007 from being in the path of beamforming energy from an outdoor high gain Line of Sight transmitter made me aware that such a device is opportune for malicious improvisation. Since then, exploring research in material science, molecular biology, microwave transmission and law indicates malicious improvisation of potent energy sourced from devices with widespread acceptance around the world (home heating, outdoor wireless communication, medical diagnostics) negatively impacts public health and safety covering infractions at a place of living, work and recuperation.

I request your comment on the need for:
- public awareness to address misuse of potent energy (similar to the public made aware of cybercrime),
- identifying instances to expand legal safeguards (pertinent statutes/penal code mention improvising common sources emitting potent energy as a method of crime and develop forensic tests to detect such energy transform household/workplace/building material and biological systems),
- a government agency given jurisdiction over malicious use of potent energy (the FCC has clarified it does not have jurisdiction on malicious use and the FDA has mentioned its focus is only on businesses).
Fear guarantees status quo to triumph over honesty.

User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 3420
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:23 am
Location: La Grange, IL
Contact:

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by Deep Thought » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:26 pm

149936.JPG
Mark Mueller • Mueller Broadcast Design • La Grange, IL • http://www.muellerbroadcastdesign.com

User avatar
techoptimist
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by techoptimist » Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:16 am

Deep Thought,

If the image of aluminum foil refers to protection, a faraday cage is unfortunately not within reach for the majority. If the implication is something else, do extend the courtesy of an explanation.

If by any chance it is to make fun, it is a very bad idea to trifle with a difficult problem as this. FYI, I have served in the U.S. Army National Guard, deployed overseas, managed to come back alive and fought over the last 11+ years to keep my wits and health stable pursuing this advocacy overcoming superior odds with detractors making every effort to compromise my life.
Fear guarantees status quo to triumph over honesty.

User avatar
awsherrill
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:30 pm
Location: Raleigh NC

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by awsherrill » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:49 am

Other than occasional shenanigans perpetrated by the Soviets during the Cold War, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone purposely trying to hurt people with "beamforming energy".

I suspect this has to do with people who supposedly are hypersensitive to RF...a tiny, tiny subset of alleged sufferers. It is counterproductive and impractical to create legislation dealing with a problem that hasn't even been conclusively shown to exist.

Many, many more people are hurt or killed every day by "beamforming" energy from the average handgun.

User avatar
techoptimist
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by techoptimist » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:38 am

> Other than occasional shenanigans perpetrated by the Soviets during the Cold War,
> I don't think I've ever heard of anyone purposely trying to hurt people with "beamforming
> energy".
>
When humans cause every form of distress to an unsuspecting victim (giving examples would be inappropriate, but you get the picture), be it regular crime or cybercrime, can we assume every person develops piety to not engage in crime using potent energy? I have not heard malicious attacker on the Internet publish their techniques before or after an attack. It is computer forensics and _ethical hacking_ that prepares society to anticipate vulnerability. What I am proposing is in the footsteps of ethical hacking in the context of biophysical harm from potent energy. I have not built such a device since I do not have expertise in electronic circuit design and neither have I found hardware engineers as yet who I would trust with my life.

> I suspect this has to do with people who supposedly are hypersensitive to RF...a tiny, tiny
> subset of alleged sufferers. It is counterproductive and impractical to create legislation
> dealing with a problem that hasn't even been conclusively shown to exist.
>
If you are not already aware, I would recommend you to search for 'engineering forum magnetron harm risk' where enough good Samaritans have advised experimenters to be shy of the lethal consequences. From my service in the military, I have seen people improvise everyday objects to serve as weapon in detainee compounds. Is every single person in civil society ethical to a point that they will discount using an unfair advantage to overcome poverty/desperation of some other kind leave alone the sadistic tendency to derive pleasure from tormenting a fellow being?

> Many, many more people are hurt or killed every day by "beamforming" energy from the
> average handgun.
>
Look at it from a territorial superiority stand-point. A conventional firearm achieves territorial superiority in the _visible_ realm but does not go unnoticed since forensic tests exist, consequently the law enforcement is on the heels of the perp. When beamforming potent energy of the _invisible_ kind is used, no dent is detected anywhere (neither on physical matter nor on living being). I hope you are not suggesting that criminal intent does not find the path of least resistance to not get discovered.
Fear guarantees status quo to triumph over honesty.

TPT
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: St. Marys, WV

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by TPT » Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:40 pm

Some suspicion that the effects noted by US diplomats in Havana ( headaches, blurred vision) might have been the result of relatively high-powered microwave energy aimed at their building. It is possible to listen to conversations by aiming microwave carriers at windows, then detecting the minute amplitude modulation caused by sound vibrations on the window glass. Lasers have been used this way, but perhaps the microwaves would be less susceptible to the effects of heating in tropical Havana.

Also the counter surveiance technique is to play an endless loop of Camila Cabello...

User avatar
KPJL FM
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:28 am
Location: planet Earth, 3rd rock from sun

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by KPJL FM » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:04 am

Let's take the politics out of this board.
Before I get started...
Trim to fit, paint to match, tune for minimum smoke.

ncradioeng
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:58 pm

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by ncradioeng » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am

Leon Theremin, inventor of the musical instrument, also invented "The Thing" - A passive Soviet listening device placed in the ambassador's office during the Cold War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Theremin

Scroll down to "Espionage".


User avatar
techoptimist
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by techoptimist » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:48 am

KPJL FM wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:04 am
Let's take the politics out of this board.
Before I get started...
I have no interest in politicising this topic since to me it is risk management to protect the unsuspecting/vulnerable in civil society. Without the needed legal guardrails, every critical path (merger/acquisition, busy marketplace, prime real-estate, government officials appropriating resources/jobs) in society is prone to dishonorable dominance.

My intention is not flare temper, but since it seems like it is, if the moderator decides this is off-topic, I will respect that.
Fear guarantees status quo to triumph over honesty.

User avatar
techoptimist
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by techoptimist » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:22 pm

I posted this concern here since you all have an ear to the ground on this subject matter. A suggestion sent to the FTC last Sunday on this topic via regulations.gov (ticket #: 1k3-98oi-kete which may be published at some point) will show my concern is not with broadcast energy per se, rather with the transmitters whose energy can be shaped/guided to follow an unidirectional path.

If you all care to reciprocate, I welcome any form of support/critique, technical or tactical.
Fear guarantees status quo to triumph over honesty.

COMMENG
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:30 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Making a case for factoring malicious use of potent energy

Post by COMMENG » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:25 am

I don't know what medical anomaly you may have been inflicted with (not stated in your original post) but your suggestions seems to be in the form of a regulation(s) searching for a problem.

AM Broadcast frequencies have little or no effect on living cells.

FM energy may warm the body since a human's height is a fraction of the resonant frequency of commercial broadcast FM, but again no physical proof of harm has been shown.

You are more likely to suffer a burn from an RF discharge path than being near an RF source.

Microwave energy is known to heat cells at the molecular level (via the rotation of water molecules) and may cause cataracts, but there is no proof that even uWave energy causes DNA mutations.

Besides, physics says that the farther away you are from an RF source the energy drops off as as the inverse of the square of the distance from the source (the Friis equation).

https://www.electronics-notes.com/artic ... h-loss.php

There already exists a plethora of Occupational Regulations, Codes, and Standards of Practices covering human body exposure to various RF (non-ionizing) radiation sources. Googling "SAR" will show what I mean.

My suggestion to you (since you asked for suggestions) is to study the physics of EM waves, RF propagation and attenuation, and the various existing regulations before proposing legal and regulatory avenues for a hypothetical or imagined problem.

COMMENG

Post Reply