Tell us something we don’t know.

   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,851  
I'm thinking about a microwave oven, how it cooks with a magnetron through an antenna.
Here...this explains it easier than I can and tonight we had chicken and eggs heated in one, I'm not sure which came first though.
Microwaves are used to cook people, too. Both intentionally, and accidentally.

On the intentional end is the Active Denial System, dreamed up by the evil scientists at one of my prior employers. Basically, a 100 kW transmitter operating at 95 GHz through a highly-directed antenna array, it will burn skin at distances of almost a half mile. The high frequency was chosen for the opposite reason of the microwave oven, as it will excite water molecules only on the surface of the skin, without causing internal organ damage.


For those who don't already know, the first resonant frequency of the water molecule is a little above 22 GHz, and microwave ovens operate down at 2.45 GHz, for better penetration. The ADS system uses 95 GHz for precisely the opposite reason, very fast decay of the signal as it propagates through your skin.

On the accidental end, a man was killed at a military base in the UK, by one of my customers operating an outdoor electromagnetic compatibility test site. Without going into the details, a man found himself out on the test range while someone was operating one of our large amplifiers (10's of kilowatts constant power), which succeeded in cooking is liver, gonads, and pretty much every other high-density organ, to some degree. He died a day or two later.

In another incident, my mentor as a young engineer managed to cook his arm while resting it on something called a slotted line, used for testing the source/load match between an RF or microwave amplifier and the load. He had his arm resting on the line, covering the "slot", and kept smelling chicken. All the while, he's thinking to himself, "who the hell is cooking chicken in the lab?" Much damage was done, before he realized the chicken he was smelling was actually the muscle in his arm being cooked from the inside out. He claims he never felt a thing, but you can just imagine how bad the burns were, if he was smelling himself cook!
 
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,852  
I've heard stories about the hazards of radar on larger pleasure crafts...

Don't know the details but it could be simply not being aware of the hazards?
 
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,854  
When I worked Ground Radar for airports we made sure we had all the interlocks working.

The tube and Waveguide was always black magic to me.
Antenna tuning was by various meters and a ball peen hammer.

The antenna rotates to "paint" a picture of the area.

Some of the circuitry was just copper lands, cut with an exacto knife to work correctly.
Thickness of the copper foil was also key into how the circuits worked.

This is what a conductor for Radar (waveguide) looks like
1710332454618.jpeg
 
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,856  
True, except oddly... dBm. Of course it's dB's over 1 mW, but nobody writes or says "dBmW", as they do with dBV or dBW. I'm as guilty as the rest, it's a convention I use many times per day, but I always thought it odd.

It's also odd that we specify power of enormous 10,000 watt amplifiers using milliwatts, as in 10 kW = 70 dBm. Might as well measure the distance from here to the moon in millimeters! :D
Seemingly odd but not so much. While the difference in 1 mW and 10,000 Watts is a lot in power and out of pocket expense in RF terms the difference is not so great.

Is hard to explain even to amateur radio operators who should be able to gain first hand experience in how going from 100W to 1,000W doesn't make the signal much stronger.
 
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,857  
I've heard stories about the hazards of radar on larger pleasure crafts...

Don't know the details but it could be simply not being aware of the hazards?
These radars are generally pulsed, and while I don't work specifically on marine radar, I'd guess their duty cycle is probably something like 0.1%. So, a "4000 watt" marine radar might put out an average power of 40 watts. Don't hold me to those numbers, but I'd bet they're not terribly far off.

By comparison, GSM cell phones put out 1/2 watt maximum average power. So, at first glance, you'd think the radar must be 80x worse, but this is not really the case, because:

1. Both field magnitude and power density follow the inverse square law, so each time you double the distance, the power density present upon you drops by 4x. A cell phone might be 1/2 inch from your skull, whereas you may never be much closer than 10 feet to the radar on a pleasure craft. That's 240x difference in distance, and 57,600 difference in attenuation. In other words, the radar is only 80x more powerful than a cell phone, but divide that by 57,600... the cell phone is actually dissipating 720x more power into your head than the radar.

2. Total exposure time is low. It's swinging around, you're rarely in its path, and how much time do you actually spend on a boat running radar versus talking on a cell phone?

I would guess any danger is isolated to someone standing very close to it, e.g. working on the thing while it's running, and even then it's not terrible. I'm usually working on amplifiers producing thousands to many tens of thousands of watts average power, not 40 watts! :D
 
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,858  
These radars are generally pulsed, and while I don't work specifically on marine radar, I'd guess their duty cycle is probably something like 0.1%. So, a "4000 watt" marine radar might put out an average power of 40 watts. Don't hold me to those numbers, but I'd bet they're not terribly far off.

By comparison, GSM cell phones put out 1/2 watt maximum average power. So, at first glance, you'd think the radar must be 80x worse, but this is not really the case, because:

1. Both field magnitude and power density follow the inverse square law, so each time you double the distance, the power density present upon you drops by 4x. A cell phone might be 1/2 inch from your skull, whereas you may never be much closer than 10 feet to the radar on a pleasure craft. That's 240x difference in distance, and 57,600 difference in attenuation. In other words, the radar is only 80x more powerful than a cell phone, but divide that by 57,600... the cell phone is actually dissipating 720x more power into your head than the radar.

2. Total exposure time is low. It's swinging around, you're rarely in its path, and how much time do you actually spend on a boat running radar versus talking on a cell phone?

I would guess any danger is isolated to someone standing very close to it, e.g. working on the thing while it's running, and even then it's not terrible. I'm usually working on amplifiers producing thousands to many tens of thousands of watts average power, not 40 watts! :D
Unlike microwave ovens where the goal is to transfer energy into water, the radio frequencies in radar are generally chosen to NOT be absorbed by water (fog, clouds, rain, humans, etc.). That makes for better signal since the RF isn't blocked or absorbed.

There are very specific rules on how much energy is allowed to be absorbed by humans from cell phones, and it is a small number, that would cause a pound of water to rise about 0.001 degrees, well within the ability of tissue to dissipate the energy.

You can look up your phone at the FCC, or below if you are interested;

I would point out that given the lack of change of brain cancer in the phone using population before and after using cell phones does demonstrate that practically speaking the SAR number is low enough not to cause harm to tissue. Cell phone use on the ability to remember directions, or information, or... different story. The ability to find information by "Googling" certainly is double edged sword for me; I can look things up so easily that I probably do not try as hard just to remember it, but then again, I am much more inclined to look something up to verify a detail or definition.:confused:🤷‍♂️

All the best,

Peter
 
Last edited:
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,859  
Seemingly odd but not so much. While the difference in 1 mW and 10,000 Watts is a lot in power and out of pocket expense in RF terms the difference is not so great.
True, the output field strength doesn't go up linearly with power. But the cost and complexity differences are enormous, probably climbing at more than double square law when you get above 1000 watts average power. There are only a small handful of people in the world working on general purpose solid state RF and microwave amplifiers producing more than 10 kW average power, and we pretty much all know one another, it's a very small community. New applications such as RF heating are expanding that a bit, I just worked on some narrowband systems at 70,000 watts and 125,000 watts for private industry, but classically most of these large amplifiers are of a cost and scale only supported by military applications. Think individual amplifiers at $5M each, and test sites costing $100M or more.

No small part of my business comes from companies who think this will be easy, just start combining 100 watt amplifiers to make 1000 watts, etc. It's common for them to look at the cost of these large systems, which is always high compared to the raw material cost, and think they can do it on their own. Then they inevitably run into the same old problems that every legacy company in this business has ever experienced, with heating, voltage breakdown, gain and phase matching long and physically enormous power amplifier sections and huge gain paths... and they blow up more expensive hardware than they'd have spent in just hiring an experienced company to do the job. :D

Someone here has the sig, "stupid should hurt." Likewise, "experience is expensive"!
 
Last edited:
   / Tell us something we don’t know. #7,860  
Unlike microwave ovens where the goal is to transfer energy into water, the radio frequencies in radar are generally chosen to NOT be absorbed by water (fog, clouds, rain, humans, etc.). That makes for better signal since the RF isn't blocked or absorbed.
Good point! Hadn't even thought of that. Makes perfect sense.
 
 
Top