A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
1–10 of 171 posts
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#2This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#3This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.
> This an advertisement for their RF phone cases
This is on ieee.org. The article mentioned this[1] other test by the Chicago Tribune. This isn't purely an advertisement though it serves that purpose a bit.
It's disputed because they only tested 2 iPhones.
> There are reasons to take the results with a grain of salt, however. McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone 11 Pro for the tests—phones the company had purchased off the shelf. He attributed not testing more phones to the cost of purchasing multiple iPhones
This is also important:
> More notably, when the FCC conducted a follow-up investigation after the Tribune published its story, the agency did not find evidence that any of the phones exceeded SAR limits. That said, while the Tribune and Penumbra both used off-the-shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the manufacturers, including Apple.
It raises the question whether Apple and others supplied the FCC with phones that are different from what they sell.
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-...
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#4Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters.
They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.
The square of the distance model is for a pair of points. Phones in pockets at such closed distances are more closely modeled by a pair of infinite planes where the power falls off not at all. The real result will be in between, but very much closer to 1 than 6.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#5This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.
> This an advertisement for their RF phone cases This is on ieee.org. The article mentioned this[1] other test by the Chicago Tribune. This isn't purely an advertisement though it serves that purpose a bit. It's disputed because they only tested 2 iPhones. > There are reasons to take the results with a grain of salt, however. McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone…
This story isn’t strictly a submarine story but pg has stated a PR agency is a great marketing investment . I also saw at least a dozen articles that were similar using DuckDuckGo. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#6> The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone’s thermal effects—essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone.
I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me is if the battery explodes, which doesn't seem to be a pervasive issue. So probably not. As someone else pointed out this is a marketing ploy.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#7This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.
> This an advertisement for their RF phone cases This is on ieee.org. The article mentioned this[1] other test by the Chicago Tribune. This isn't purely an advertisement though it serves that purpose a bit. It's disputed because they only tested 2 iPhones. > There are reasons to take the results with a grain of salt, however. McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone…
A lot of these smartphones go through imperical tests in an anechoic chamber managed by a third party lab to see if they’re bellow the allowed levels in each band. That sounds hackish but (IMO) isn’t the end of the world.
What weirds me out is that they’ll send them to these third party labs and repeatedly test some small number (possibly one) of devices until it’s right up against what’s allowed. That feels less than scientific and probably wrong although I’m not sure what I’d change.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#8This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.
> This an advertisement for their RF phone cases This is on ieee.org. The article mentioned this[1] other test by the Chicago Tribune. This isn't purely an advertisement though it serves that purpose a bit. It's disputed because they only tested 2 iPhones. > There are reasons to take the results with a grain of salt, however. McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone…
> the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the manufacturers, including Apple.
That weasel word “largely” isn’t helpful. They either only tested supplied phones, which may raise suspicions; or they also tested phones sourced from other channels, however insignificantly, suggesting problems with the third-party tests, or they would have noticed the anomaly. “Largely” ostensibly points to the latter, but it could also mean “we don’t know”.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#9I suspect this has something to do with the inferior intel modem that was used during the Qualcomm debacle. One of the main advantages of the next iPhone will be returning to a Qualcomm modem that isn't rubbish.
Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit
#10> The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone’s thermal effects—essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone. I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me…
Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual scientific evidence for this is minimal though.