originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Bedlam
Tell me why it's impossible to stick this inside someone? Or place it on the scalp under the hair?
I mean, it's not like it's a pacemaker or anything like that.
They use pills with cameras now to go through your GI system, tracking and taking photos, instead of the old fashion way - much better improvement!
Actually, a cell phone is a lot more complex than a pacemaker. Although let's start with that. A pacemaker's a pretty simplistic device. But it's
bulky. Because it needs a battery. Since it's implanted, you can't readily change it or charge it, so it's big. And they communicate with their
interrogator through near-field communications, not through radio.
We covered the top reasons why up thread -
1) antennas have to be a certain size to have any efficiency, and that size is relative to the wavelength. The higher the frequency, the shorter the
However, even at GSM frequencies, the antenna is not exactly trivial. It's the size of the phone. They just put the antenna inside the package these
days. Got an iPhone? That metal band around the thing is the antenna, at least 2/3 of it is. You can't make a cell phone antenna 20 mils long because
you want to.
That also crops up with the GPS antenna. Do you know how GPS works? You're receiving very small signals from satellites. The antenna's about the
size of a big postage stamp. You don't get to make it the size of a flea, because the size is inextricably linked with the frequency.
So putting a cell phone inside someone requires pretty hefty antennas. Antennas you can't make fit through a mosquito snout, because physics.
2) signal loss because you're conductive
You lose a HUGE amount of radiated power any time you try to transmit from inside something conductive. And you lose that much trying to receive as
well. So it's going to be impossible to pick up GPS signals inside your body. And close to impossible to pick up the incoming cell phone data you
need to make the GPS go. Or to receive the command to send the location.
GPS is calculation intensive, which requires non-trivial amounts of power. Running a GSM cell phone is a lot worse. You just can't belt out a few
hundred mW of radio signal with a mosquito nose sized battery.
4) you can't miniaturize digital and analog mixed ICs that well
Ever looked at the inside of a cell phone? There's a number of ICs in there to make the magic go. Same with a GPS receiver. Add those together. It's
pretty damned tough to shrink that much circuitry enough to fit through a mosquito nose. Most cell phones and GPS receivers try to split the RF and
digital sections into separate parts - the technology you use for making digital chips is different from the one you use to make analog parts, and
although you can sort of bastardize it to get it to work together for some types of parts, it's really tough to make good low noise RF sections when
it's on the same die as a CPU. Not to mention that the part will also have to make 500mW of RF output on the same mosquito-nose sized die. What do
you do with the heat?
It's a logical fallacy to say look what they did with this thing, therefore you can do whatever I imagine with the other. We used to call it the
astronaut fallacy when I was a kid, because the statement went "If they can send men to the Moon, why can't they make (bad comparison)?" A pill
camera is tough to do, but it's not the same issue set. BTW, pill cameras also use near-field communication to return their data, because you can't
use radio, for the reasons I've stated.
I don't care what you call them, they work, my neighbor has one for her child. It's a wonderful invention for a paranoid parent!
Really even a cell phone can be a tracking device now!
It's a tracking device because it's a cell phone, not in spite of being one. They work, alright, but they work because they're a complete cell
phone. And cell phones are trackable, because that's how the system works. In order to do the cell hand off, the towers have to have a pretty good
idea of where you are, and AGPS just adds to that ability.
Why are you deliberately trying to shoot down everything I say.
I was agreeing with you for most of the thread.
I'm just giving specific examples to working devices that exist everywhere now, it's 2014.
My point is that the thing doesn't exist, and that the article from whence your facts come is also grossly inaccurate, and thus not a reliable source
of information. It's not YOU, I'm sure you're a nice person, just that the info you're basing this on is wrong.