> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4JudnTVI5NBSbCjbnZ2dnUVZ8tqinZ2d@bt.com...
>> No matter how you slice it the incident energy from a phone mast at its
>> maximum output is a few micro watts per sqm at normal ranges, and perhaps
>> a > few milliwatts close to a mast. 1sqm is about your cross section.
>> The phone itself will output up to 0.6W, a fraction of which will be
>> absorbed by the user.
>
> To make a fair comparison, I suppose you should look at the sun's power
> *over the range of frequencies that mobile phones use* rather than over
> the whole RF to X-ray range which I think is what you were talking about
> with the 1-2 kW/sq m.
>
> I would have thought that even if you take this into account, the sun
> proably emits more radiation than a mobile phone over the same range of
> frequencies, but I don't know whether that's true.
Maybe, maybe not, I have no idea. But what does occur to me is, if the sun
really was emitting vast amounts of radiation at GSM frequencies, surely
phones would stop working during daylight hours?
> How does the power received by the body at a typical range compare between
> mobile phones and wireless networks? I've encountered several customers
> who won't have a wireless network whereas they are quite happy to carry a
> mobile phone right next to their body. The frequencies are fairly similar,
> aren't they, so effect on the body should be dependent mainly on the
> incident power in W/sq m.
GSM mobiles: 900 and 1800MHz, Wifi and microwave ovens, 2.4GHz.
Define 'similar'.
> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to the
> router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
> microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
> available channels.
A leakage figure of 1W sounds familiar (but I think that came from
Wackypedia, so all bets are off) and wifi nodes use up to about 1/10th of
that.
"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:13bbum2mm216341@corp.supernews.com...
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4JudnTVI5NBSbCjbnZ2dnUVZ8tqinZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
> To make a fair comparison, I suppose you should look at the sun's power
> *over the range of frequencies that mobile phones use* rather than over
> the whole RF to X-ray range which I think is what you were talking about
> with the 1-2 kW/sq m.
The centre of the sun's radiation is roughly yellow light.
>
> I would have thought that even if you take this into account, the sun
> proably emits more radiation than a mobile phone over the same range of
> frequencies, but I don't know whether that's true.
It is what is absorbed by a human that would be the question.
Suffice it to say that the sun has macro heating effects in infra red etc.
so I would suspect that the incident radiation in uwave would be in the
order of watts.
>
>
>
> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to the
> router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
> microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
> available channels.
Fairly low, but you will suffer damage from macro effects if you run a
magnetron exposed (e.g. interfere with oven interlock or climb up a big
transmitter).
>
>
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4a-dnX4o2rS8rivbRVnyjgA@bt.com...
>
>> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
>> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
>> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to
>> the router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
>> microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
>> available channels.
>
> Fairly low, but you will suffer damage from macro effects if you run a
> magnetron exposed (e.g. interfere with oven interlock or climb up a big
> transmitter).
What frequency and power did WWII radar use? My grandpa used to tell me how
you could put your hand over the end of the waveguide between the
transmitter and the aerial (presumaby if you took the waveguide apart) and
fell your hand get hot fairly quickly. Probably didn't do his hand (or any
other part of his body!) much good.
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4a-dnX4o2rS8rivbRVnyjgA@bt.com...
> >
> >> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
> >> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
> >> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to
> >> the router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
> >> microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
> >> available channels.
> >
> > Fairly low, but you will suffer damage from macro effects if you run a
> > magnetron exposed (e.g. interfere with oven interlock or climb up a big
> > transmitter).
>
> What frequency and power did WWII radar use? My grandpa used to tell me how
> you could put your hand over the end of the waveguide between the
> transmitter and the aerial (presumaby if you took the waveguide apart) and
> fell your hand get hot fairly quickly. Probably didn't do his hand (or any
> other part of his body!) much good.
WW2 radars operated over a wide range of wavelengths. From 'metric' for the
likes of the British Chain Home 'early warning' system to centimetric for
magnetron based radars.
If it was waveguide then somewhere around 10cm ( 3 GHz ) typically IIRC.
Peak power was very high - up to 10kW for even the earliest magnetrons but the
pulse duration was only a few microseconds. Average power was probably in the
tens of watts. Enough to warm your hand though !
In message <dm7ti.23195$gO4.1531@newsfet03.ams>
"Gizmo." <spammers@suck.die> wrote:
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f92rjg$9q4$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> You take fuckwittery to the extreme.
>
>
> > typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60.
> > If we use an optimistic figure of 30
> 40 to 60 ... figure of 30 ... what ? Turnips? carrots? dog shit?
If no unit is specified, we have to take it that it's a simple
factor.
If we're going to point out what an idiot Lenny is, we have to
get it right ourselves.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46B63BD7.687C6D13@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> What frequency and power did WWII radar use? My grandpa used to tell me
>> how
>> you could put your hand over the end of the waveguide between the
>> transmitter and the aerial (presumaby if you took the waveguide apart)
>> and
>> feel your hand get hot fairly quickly. Probably didn't do his hand (or
>> any
>> other part of his body!) much good.
>
> WW2 radars operated over a wide range of wavelengths. From 'metric' for
> the
> likes of the British Chain Home 'early warning' system to centimetric for
> magnetron based radars.
>
> If it was waveguide then somewhere around 10cm ( 3 GHz ) typically IIRC.
>
> Peak power was very high - up to 10kW for even the earliest magnetrons but
> the
> pulse duration was only a few microseconds. Average power was probably in
> the
> tens of watts. Enough to warm your hand though !
It was (I think) Chain Home: Danby Beacon in the North York Moors, anyway.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:06:31 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>WW2 radars operated over a wide range of wavelengths. From 'metric' for the
>likes of the British Chain Home 'early warning' system to centimetric for
>magnetron based radars.
Even the Chain Home radars managed a Megawatt (peak) at 30 MHz. GCI
Radars at 200MHz generally ran about 100kW
>If it was waveguide then somewhere around 10cm ( 3 GHz ) typically IIRC.
>Peak power was very high - up to 10kW for even the earliest magnetrons but the
>pulse duration was only a few microseconds.
10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
Most of the 3GHz radars ran about 500kW peak, once you got into the
50's the type 84 at 1.2GHz ran 2.5MW. The 1966 Type 85 (Blue Yeoman)
ran an eye watering 54MW at about 3GHz out of 12 transmitters with an
_average_ power of up to 20kW.
Amazing how none of these mysterious "clusters" of variegated
ailments never occurred around them or in people working on them.
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Mortimer wrote:
> >
> >> What frequency and power did WWII radar use? My grandpa used to tell me
> >> how you could put your hand over the end of the waveguide between the
> >> transmitter and the aerial (presumaby if you took the waveguide apart)
> >> and feel your hand get hot fairly quickly. Probably didn't do his hand (or
> >> any other part of his body!) much good.
> >
> > WW2 radars operated over a wide range of wavelengths. From 'metric' for
> > the likes of the British Chain Home 'early warning' system to centimetric
> for
> > magnetron based radars.
> >
> > If it was waveguide then somewhere around 10cm ( 3 GHz ) typically IIRC.
> >
> > Peak power was very high - up to 10kW for even the earliest magnetrons but
> > the pulse duration was only a few microseconds. Average power was probably
> in
> > the tens of watts. Enough to warm your hand though !
>
> It was (I think) Chain Home: Danby Beacon in the North York Moors, anyway.
"Peter Parry" <peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:bvicb39aeu40om9clj6nus7nk9v6sq6ng6@4ax.com...
> Amazing how none of these mysterious "clusters" of variegated
> ailments never occurred around them or in people working on them.
Shh if you tell Lenny that radar is microwave he will want all airports
closed too.
But it is odd that even though microwave radiation has been around for
decades people are only sensitive to WiFi and mobile phones.
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >WW2 radars operated over a wide range of wavelengths. From 'metric' for the
> >likes of the British Chain Home 'early warning' system to centimetric for
> >magnetron based radars.
>
> Even the Chain Home radars managed a Megawatt (peak) at 30 MHz. GCI
> Radars at 200MHz generally ran about 100kW
>
> >If it was waveguide then somewhere around 10cm ( 3 GHz ) typically IIRC.
> >Peak power was very high - up to 10kW for even the earliest magnetrons but the
> >pulse duration was only a few microseconds.
>
> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned waveguides, hence
microwave kit.
> Most of the 3GHz radars ran about 500kW peak,
Not in WW2 they didn't ! I got the figure of 10kW from E.G. Bowen's book 'Radar
Days'. That was the one out of the first batch of 12 made by GEC with 8 cavities
instead of 6 (there's a long story about that). The 6 cavity ones were apparently
only good for 6kW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron#History
On 2007-08-05, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in
> message news:CJ6dnZK_F47FbyjbRVnyigA@bt.com
>> "Brian Gregory [UK]" <ng@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:a9adnXKyb-GVYinbnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> > So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?
>> >
>> > Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to
>> > transmit to phones that were so far away that they
>> > haven't a hope in hell of being able to transmit back
>> > to the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??
>>
>> 1W on GSM. Higher on analog (6W) but not in handheld
>> (0.6W).
>
> ISTR 900MHz GSM are 2W max and 1800 1W, which may go some way to
> explaining our old friend Jim's dislike of 1800 MHz systems ;-)
Those are the legal limits, but with a normal teeny-tiny handheld
handset you'll be lucky if it puts out more than about 0.25W average,
if that much. Since the radio link with the tower has reciprocal
performance in both directions, the output power used by the
tower to talk to the phone won't be much more than that.
There is a GSM bag phone available in the USA for use in rural
areas (the Motorola M800) which runs at the full legal 2W/1W limit.
It weighs about 4 pounds. You need significant batteries to
support that power output.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46B65937.9CF99FB8@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Peter Parry wrote:
>
>> Amazing how none of these mysterious "clusters" of variegated
>> ailments never occurred around them or in people working on them.
>
> Naval radars can apparently cook seagulls in flight.
>
> Graham
>
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Peter Parry wrote:
> >
> >> Amazing how none of these mysterious "clusters" of variegated
> >> ailments never occurred around them or in people working on them.
> >
> > Naval radars can apparently cook seagulls in flight.
>
> any evidence of this, or purely anecdotal?
I've heard it claimed in the electronics groups. It was alleged that they could
'shoot down' birds with their radar beams.
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:10:39 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
>> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
>> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
>
>These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned waveguides, hence
>microwave kit.
The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
territory.
>> Most of the 3GHz radars ran about 500kW peak,
>
>Not in WW2 they didn't ! I got the figure of 10kW from E.G. Bowen's book 'Radar
>Days'. That was the one out of the first batch of 12 made by GEC with 8 cavities
>instead of 6 (there's a long story about that). The 6 cavity ones were apparently
>only good for 6kW.
That's just the magnetron output (and 6kW was true only for the very
early models). Radars such as the WW2 type 54 based on Navy 277 ran
500kW Peak EIRP at 3GHz.
--
Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
George Weston wrote:
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f92rjg$9q4$1@news.datemas.de...
>> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>>
>> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
>> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
>> 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.
>
> Well, I googled for the above "misinformation" and guess what I found - yep,
> the site you quote in your post.
Why do these groups websites never have a forum on them
"tony h" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:f96b82$30a1$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46B65937.9CF99FB8@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Peter Parry wrote:
>>
>>> Amazing how none of these mysterious "clusters" of variegated
>>> ailments never occurred around them or in people working on them.
>>
>> Naval radars can apparently cook seagulls in flight.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> any evidence of this, or purely anecdotal?
I once worked with an ex-army type who said they would unhook the rotation
gear on their dish and cook wood pigeons from the trees when they fancied a
change to the army rations. They certainly have enough power to do it but I
am not sure you can stop the rotation on most radars which would have been
about when he was in the army.
lenny@say.no.to.wifi declared for all the world to hear...
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
> 60W light bulb
I've worked in the industry for nearly 9 years and I've never heard
that.
--
Regards
Jon
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:10:39 +0100, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
> >> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
> >> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
> >
> >These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned waveguides, hence
> >microwave kit.
>
> The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
> territory.
>
> >> Most of the 3GHz radars ran about 500kW peak,
> >
> >Not in WW2 they didn't ! I got the figure of 10kW from E.G. Bowen's book 'Radar
> >Days'. That was the one out of the first batch of 12 made by GEC with 8 cavities
> >instead of 6 (there's a long story about that). The 6 cavity ones were apparently
> >only good for 6kW.
>
> That's just the magnetron output (and 6kW was true only for the very
> early models). Radars such as the WW2 type 54 based on Navy 277 ran
> 500kW Peak EIRP at 3GHz.
> --
> Peter Parry.
> http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:13bcdok2tduav6a@corp.supernews.com...
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4a-dnX4o2rS8rivbRVnyjgA@bt.com...
>>
>>> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
>>> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
>>> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to
>>> the router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that
>>> some microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice
>>> of available channels.
>>
>> Fairly low, but you will suffer damage from macro effects if you run a
>> magnetron exposed (e.g. interfere with oven interlock or climb up a big
>> transmitter).
>
> What frequency and power did WWII radar use? My grandpa used to tell me
> how you could put your hand over the end of the waveguide between the
> transmitter and the aerial (presumaby if you took the waveguide apart) and
> fell your hand get hot fairly quickly. Probably didn't do his hand (or any
> other part of his body!) much good.
>
There was a tale (and I think it was just a tale) that in the 1960's an
engineer claimed you could her the clicks on a big radar and so walked in
front of one at RAF Leuchars. After a short period he fell down [dead?].
Obviously this is the macro effect of absorbing a lot of energy, and similar
lethal results would ensue of you or your surface were rapidly heated in
some other way resulting in heat stroke or burns.
For large doses of uwave, I would presume that coagulation of the blood at
the absorption site, leading to circulating clots and embolism would be the
quickest way out, however where criminals have cooked live animals in uwave
ovens they sometimes survive, minus burnt appendages / tail.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46B65724.705DD9F5@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>>
>> It was (I think) Chain Home: Danby Beacon in the North York Moors,
>> anyway.
>
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...&t=k&z=18&om=1
>
> You can only make out the roads that were left behind now.
Yes. I went up there when I was on holiday in the area and found the site,
identified by a noticeboard beside the road. There's virtually nothing
identifiable now, just a few cracked concrete slabs hidden among the
heather, than may have been the floor of a building with a basement below
it.
I wish I'd listened more closely to the stories he told me about the work
they did. I remember him telling me about the time he went into Whitby on
his day off and phoned my grandma from a phone box and was rather alarmed to
hear the talkback from the radar station to the central plotting site when
he picked up the phone due to a crossed line!
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
> >> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
> >> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
> >
> >These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned waveguides, hence
> >microwave kit.
>
> The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
> territory.
Not WW2.
> >> Most of the 3GHz radars ran about 500kW peak,
> >
> >Not in WW2 they didn't ! I got the figure of 10kW from E.G. Bowen's book 'Radar
> >Days'. That was the one out of the first batch of 12 made by GEC with 8 cavities
> >instead of 6 (there's a long story about that). The 6 cavity ones were apparently
> >only good for 6kW.
>
> That's just the magnetron output
As it should be.
> (and 6kW was true only for the very
> early models). Radars such as the WW2 type 54 based on Navy 277 ran
> 500kW Peak EIRP at 3GHz.
You should know very well that EIRP includes 'antenna gain' compared to
onmidirectional radiation. In short that's not a valid figure to use.
For heating effect you can only count the actual average microwave output power. That
was tens of watts.
"Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:04d4c90d4f.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
> In message <dm7ti.23195$gO4.1531@newsfet03.ams>
> "Gizmo." <spammers@suck.die> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> news:f92rjg$9q4$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> You take fuckwittery to the extreme.
>>
>>
>> > typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to
>> > 60.
>> > If we use an optimistic figure of 30
>> 40 to 60 ... figure of 30 ... what ? Turnips? carrots? dog shit?
>
> If no unit is specified, we have to take it that it's a simple
> factor.
>
> If we're going to point out what an idiot Lenny is, we have to
> get it right ourselves.
Which given the context and application detailed in Looneys' OP, can't be
the case.
"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:f96lbp$dj2$1@news.albasani.net...
> George Weston wrote:
>> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> news:f92rjg$9q4$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>>>
>>> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
>>> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only
>>> a
>>> 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.
>>
>> Well, I googled for the above "misinformation" and guess what I found -
>> yep, the site you quote in your post.
>
> Why do these groups websites never have a forum on them
Because they don't want to lead themselves open to hearing the truth ;o)
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46B6E52A.8EB3124@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Peter Parry wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> >> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
>> >> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
>> >> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
>> >
>> >These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned
>> >waveguides, hence
>> >microwave kit.
>>
>> The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
>> territory.
>
> Not WW2.
H2S ran at 3GHz initially (1942/3) and upped to nearer 18GHz (2/12/1945)
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:yZydndNSDLcgaSvbRVnygQA@bt.com...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46B6E52A.8EB3124@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Peter Parry wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> >> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
>>> >> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
>>> >> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
>>> >
>>> >These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned
>>> >waveguides, hence
>>> >microwave kit.
>>>
>>> The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
>>> territory.
>>
>> Not WW2.
>
> H2S ran at 3GHz initially (1942/3) and upped to nearer 18GHz (2/12/1945)
Ah! H2S. I remembering him mentioning that name. He also talked about a
modification to the system which was fitted to allow the bearing of the
incoming planes to be determined by mixing between two orthogonal aerial
arrays, adjusted using a "goniometer" (as a little boy, I thought this was a
very funny word!) for minimum (or was it maximum) signal strength.
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Peter Parry wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 10kW is way to low, even the AR1 found on every airfield ran 2 x
> >> >> 650kW transmitters at the same time. Pulse lengths varied from one
> >> >> microsecond for shorter range radars to 150 microseconds.
> >> >
> >> >These weren't microwave though. The previous poster mentioned
> >> >waveguides, hence microwave kit.
> >>
> >> The AR1 was about 3GHz, well into microwave (300MHz to 300GHz)
> >> territory.
> >
> > Not WW2.
>
> H2S ran at 3GHz initially (1942/3) and upped to nearer 18GHz (2/12/1945)
Re: the 60W light bulb misconception 
Linear Mode
