Truth about the RFID chip and vaccines

a reply to: Buvvy

My OCD part wants me to note that a grain of rice is not 180 microns big but couple of mm. Mili meter is 1000 micro meters.
But yeah 😊

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

13.4 kHz (you dropped a decimal there), and no, it is far lower than the commercial radio bands. I suspect that newer chips would use a much higher frequency, as that cuts down on the physical size of the oscillator components. The downside is that more power is needed and component placement on the substrate becomes critical due to unintentional reactances.

Your link essentially says what I said but in a more mathematical manner. Classic antenna design is useless for such small devices, so inductance antenna design is used (this is a miniaturized version of the classic coil antenna design). However, it is not correct to say that it is an inductor instead of an antenna... the two are actually related. It is an inductive antenna design that allows for transmission over very short distances.

Understand that, where possible, I try to keep any explanations on this forum in layman's terms or at least give a superficial explanation when I cannot. My purpose is to promote understanding, not to wow someone with big words.

TheRedneck

Well, in 'little'er' words, the antenna (for both power and signal), dictates the minimum size of things. There are limitations on how small an antenna can be.

An RFID device must be contactless, and so the antenna is everything. If a device is too small, it cannot get power and it cannot send signal.

a reply to: chr0naut

True enough. The other side of that equation is distance, though. A transmitter without an antenna will still deliver a signal a small distance, just not far enough to be practical. With the RFID we are speaking of, a distance of a foot is plenty sufficient.

The real reason an RFID chip, referring of course to the implantable type, has a minimum size is simply so it can be implanted without resorting to expensive techniques. We're already talking in terms of possible size being smaller than a person can reasonably see. At some point, a surgeon would not be able to implant the device without using a microscope. A device a couple of millimeters wide is vastly preferable in that situation to a device 0.05 mm wide.

Miniaturization is all the rage today... and in many cases it helps. Computers can benefit from miniaturization by becoming more powerful, more mobile, and faster. Cars can be more fuel efficient (just don't get me started on that here; most of the cars made today are very hard for me to get in and out of already). Transportation costs improve for smaller, lighter weight products.

But not everything benefits from miniaturization past a certain point. To recall my example of cars, when one cannot physically enter or exit the vehicle, the fuel mileage becomes quite unimportant. Likewise, when RFID chips are miniaturized to the point that they cannot be implanted, how far they can transmit becomes a moot point.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: TheRedneck

All that for what is clearly BS?

You owe me 5 mins...for the magnetism BS, not your thread..lol

Magnetism is pretty much proven to be true now

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for this very informative post

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nanotechnology, not RFID chip. It's nantechnology is what stored in the vaccines. "Masks & COVID Tests Contain Nanotech Vaccines Without Informed Consent". RFID is old technology, nano, is the hidden enemy, you cannot see it with naked eye.

a reply to: omegaman28

OK... what exactly does this "nanotechnology" do?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

cmon wheres your conspiracy minded crazyness now?

if you drink the rfid water it dosent just slide through you digestive tract, it burrows into every cell in your body. DUH

"I will never let the government track my every movement, hear everything I say, keep me under surveillance, and know my preferred interests from an injected RFID chip!"

*looks at phone*

a reply to: TheRedneck

First, I was actually under the impression that the QDs were a barcode and that they were not necessarily truly "quantum." More of just a mix of "stuff" that can be implanted to create something akin to a QR code.

Im also not too sure the QD would be particularly easy to fabricate, however, that centralized database inherent to the RFID tech would be advantageous in some respects. But, that central database also means many points of social vulnerability. With security specifically, I think it would be a toss up. I wouldnt be surprised to see both of them in action simultaneously, if we take the conversation outside of the framework of this fun debate

However, I do think having something that necessitates constant contact with "the system" is actually a feature and not a bug. Implanted data that degrades is a perfect method to bring a particular individual into direct, personal contact with said system on a regular basis for a variety of reasons from investigation to updating protocols. Even allowing for something like heavier encryption that is more difficult to crack due to it (relatively) constantly changing.

Realistically, I think we will see layers of these IDs instead of a single type of tech. Im just taking the strict QD vs RFID route because its more fun

I would say though.. I dont believe identifying specific individuals is quite as important as many might suspect. When we are simply trying to determine who has behavioral adherence, and who does not, "who" a specific individual actually "is," is not particularly relevant. Only whether they are DoublePlusGood or not.

The specific individual is actually very effectively addressed through social pressure to comply, using "community policing" hotlines for tips, etc.

I believe the data gathering and databases are more geared towards behavioral manipulation than necessarily identifying specific dissidents. While it can certainly be used for the latter, I believe its used to shape information channels in real time; utilizing both historic trends as well as real-time engagement.

Looking at it in terms of individuals, rather than behavioral sets and models, isnt all that necessary if those systems can manipulate large enough portions of the population to give them teeth. Then, the handling of the specific individual is accomplished through social & community pressure, which will be complemented by reporting systems.

Thats not to say individual tracking cant or wont happen, much the opposite, its just that I suspect they are a bit further down the line and will involve general biometric signatures rather than anything that requires some form of consent or awareness. When that layer is added, it will create a web that is very, very difficult to avoid. We would have RFID that would be supplemented by QD, both from the chip injection as well as things like vaccines, with lack of compliance being handled through social means and general algorithms (social credit, etc. same algos being used for censorship here and now), and then enforced through robotics.

Anyway, all that aside.. I hope you are doing well Red

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Here lately I have been seeing several reports about magnets sticking to one's body, apparently attracted by an RFID chip. I have been hearing that the RFID chips are being included in vaccines.

Oh Dear lord. Is this satire? I had heard that some people believed that the vaccine was a way to microchip people, but come on! Any idea how big this conspiracy would be to do this?

a reply to: Serdgiam

You know, one of the advantages of discussions like these is that even when I am the one disseminating information, I still tend to learn something. I've done a little "boning up" on quantum dot technology, although there are still some aspects I am not certain of.

I was actually under the impression that the QDs were a barcode and that they were not necessarily truly "quantum." More of just a mix of "stuff" that can be implanted to create something akin to a QR code.

The term "quantum" seems to have generated some confusion. A quantum dot, for example, is just an arrangement of materials that creates an area in which the quantum effects are emphasized. The procedure you are referencing uses a quantum dot as a visible light release, where excitation is via UV light of a specific wavelength rather than electrical stimulation as in a normal LED. In other words, the UV light itself acts as a power source for what is essentially a tunable LED that operates via quantum effects.

The downside seems to be that few of the quantum dot materials are safe for implantation; most quantum dots appear to be made from lead or selenium compounds which are quite toxic. This is something that appears to be under development.

Im also not too sure the QD would be particularly easy to fabricate, however, that centralized database inherent to the RFID tech would be advantageous in some respects. But, that central database also means many points of social vulnerability. With security specifically, I think it would be a toss up. I wouldnt be surprised to see both of them in action simultaneously, if we take the conversation outside of the framework of this fun debate

Fabrication appears to be a simple matter for such a small device. The real trick appears to be toxicity.

I have said many times in other threads (and may have mentioned it in this one) that I expect any RFID system to come with a tattoo... a mark, similar to a UPC code, that could be used as both an indicator of chip location and a backup for system access in the event of a malfunction. The machine that never breaks down has not yet been invented, nor is it on the horizon, and RFID chips are machines. Therefore, if they were to be implemented on a large scale, the lack of a working RFID interface could pose a serious problem for the user. In addition, while an RFID chip is not magnetic, it is susceptible to high-power magnetic fields. Any conductor which is subjected to a varying number of flux lines across it will become a small "battery" due to induced current. This would create complications should it be subjected to an MRI, for instance. No, it wouldn't turn one's hand/forehead magnetic, but it could cause the chip to overload and burn out, creating a quite painful burning sensation in the vicinity of the implant site.

That effect would also be intensified if the magnetic fields causing it were to be of high frequency. High frequency magnetics have never been thoroughly investigated, which is why I have such an interest in them. We do know that current produced in a conductor is proportional to the derivative of the quantity of flux (not the quantity of flux itself) which intensifies greatly with increasing frequency.

Indeed, this is a large part of how the power supply for a passive RFID operates... the antenna equations I have addressed in this thread are based on Maxwell's equations which describe magnetic fields.

So, getting back to my original thoughts, quantum dots do have one area where they would likely be preferable to a conventional tattoo: they are essentially invisible until activated. I doubt people would be as willing to take an RFID chip where doing so involved a very visible tattoo as they would if quantum dots were used instead. The effect would be the same: the pattern of dots would correspond to the individual's database identifier, and they could be located quickly in a medical emergency simply by use of a UV light. But the advantage would be that until that light is used, no one looks any different.

The specific individual is actually very effectively addressed through social pressure to comply, using "community policing" hotlines for tips, etc.

We already have all of that, and yet here we are: discussing the need for more.

One aspect that will likely be used to help convince people to accept a chip will be crime. When it comes to crime, simply addressing a group of people is not at all acceptable. I remember back in early school where some teachers tried that technique: if someone did a wrong, then they would punish the whole class. Of course, that was far from optimal as it encouraged peer violence and instituted a feeling of trepidation toward authority. One did not need to be "in the wrong" to be punished... simply being in a group where one other was "in the wrong" was plenty sufficient.

When it comes to the commission of a crime, our entire justice system is geared toward individual accountability (at least on paper). Thus, if the RFID is to be used to prevent/respond to crime, as it likely will be advertised as, then it becomes imperative for it to be individualized. Otherwise, people will not accept a chip that brings them back to those days when just being in the same class with a troublemaker caused one to be in trouble by default.

There is also the situation where a prominent politician could be inadvertently caught up in such a wide net of "group justice." If the techniques you are proposing were used it would take some doing to ensure that no prominent politicians were implemented, whereas using the database technique, it would be easy enough to simply falsify database entries if one were politically powerful enough.

Hope you are doing well also. Give me a yell sometime.

TheRedneck

I like the part where the OP said “ in short...”. I think in paragraph 342

The chips in our phones are already getting us in trouble. They are assigned to the individual. Every individual in the region of the November 3rd 2020 Election Day riots with a cell phone was most likely investigated…just due to the fact that they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

A chip under the skin would work the same way. You happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.


a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: Buvvy

Well, that would be the whole point of having an RFID chip, wouldn't it? To ensure compliance with social/legal mandates.

One disadvantage that an RFID chip would have over cell phones is that an RFID, by virtue of the small size and therefore the abbreviated antenna design, has an extremely short range. In a riot, it would not be possible to activate the RFID chips unless the person were standing next to a scanner. Rioters typically are not very compliant to requests to do such things.

The cell hone operates differently. It contains an active power source (the battery) as well as a continuous GPS reader that is used to help ensure constant communication with nearby towers. In other words, if I am in Alabama, my cell phone will not even waste time trying to connect to a tower in California. The GPS reads the cell phone location and sends out a signal to be picked up by any nearby towers. Once it has connected with three or more towers (needed for triangulation), it begins sending those GPS coordinates as part of its data stream. When those GPS coordinates indicate the user is about to exceed optimal range, the system can then connect the phone to another tower. In this way, constant communication is achieved, even though the user may be moving in and out of various cell tower ranges constantly.

Indeed, the very concept is where the name "cell phone" came about. The area served by a tower is called a "cell," and the largest obstacle to initially establishing mobile communications worldwide was the transition from one cell to another.

Since cell towers are not mobile, their ability to store data is not limited like a mobile device. So the locations of cell phones are typically stored on a regular basis and can be tracked. I think most know by now that even turning one's phone off does not disable the GPS or the tower connection, so the phone can be tracked even when powered off. Removing the battery will disable the tracking (after a short time; there are internal capacitive supplies, which are exhausted after just a few minutes), but some newer phones have a battery that is integral and cannot be removed by a user. I wonder why?

One thing that RFID chips would assist in such a situation: if someone were to claim that a friend used their phone and therefore they were not involved, or perhaps that their phone had been stolen, yet they were IDed by an RFID scanner in a store in that area, that would cast some doubt on their story and provide collaborating evidence that yes, they were in the area when their phone said they were.

TheRedneck

The chip isn't about control of everyone, they already can do that, right now.

No, it's to fulfill their true desire - to become our God(s) and have everyone on Earth praise and worship them as being their 'true' God(s), not some 'fictional' God, written about in the Bible!

That is what the 'antichrist' means, to 'replace' God, with Satan/The Beast, as our 'true God'.

All who take the mark of 'our true God', shall share the Earth, with their God(s). All disbelievers shall be killed, imprisoned, or in exile, hidden in fear.

a reply to: turbonium1

Would that be the Flat Earth? By any chance?

Just asking.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you guys researched nanotechnology or nano particles? RFID is not in the vaccine, it’s nano. Watch the video link below. Fasten your seatbelt.

youtu.be...

a reply to: omegaman28

The RFID chip is the smallest device that can be manufactured to track. Nanotechnology at this time is limited to chemical molecules that are able to assemble into simple machines (think lever, screw, inclined plane, etc.) to perform simple tasks without any intelligence or communication. Some have magnetic properties that allow us to guide them (roughly) using external magnetic fields, but none have (none can have) the ability to pull a magnet to themselves. They're too small; think of someone saying the earth pulls on the sun. Technically, that's true, but the sun does not orbit the earth. The earth does orbit the sun, because it is so small compared to the sun.

TheRedneck

Yeah, the article re: "Biochemical functionality of magnetic particles as nanosensors: how far away are we to implement them into clinical practice?" referenced in the video, from 2019

jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com...

Abstract
Magnetic nanosensors have become attractive instruments for the diagnosis and treatment of diferent diseases. They represent an efcient carrier system in drug delivery or in transporting contrast agents. For such purposes, magnetic nanosensors are used in vivo (intracorporeal application). To remove specifc compounds from blood, magnetic nanosensors act as elimination system, which represents an extracorporeal approach. This review discusses principles, advantages and risks on recent advances in the feld of magnetic nanosensors. First, synthesis methods for magnetic nanosensors and possibilities for enhancement of biocompatibility with diferent coating materials are addressed. Then, attention is devoted to clinical applications, in which nanosensors are or may be used as carrier- and elimination systems in the near future. Finally, risk considerations and possible efects of nanomaterials are discussed when working towards clinical applications with magnetic nanosensors.

***SNIP*** ***SNIP ***SNIP***

Magnetic nanosensors as carrier system

Drug delivery

Magnetic nanoparticles are considered ideal candidates for drug delivery for several reasons. Their large surface-to volume ratio allows for a high loading with active substances. Moreover, these MNPs can be directed by a magnet and facilitate targeted delivery of drugs. Finally, stable dispersions and fast transportation in fluids can be realized due to the small size of the MNPs/b][.

Bolding mine. Super interesting reading. Very possible and very plausible. I have toyed with the idea of testing my friends jab site. Still don't want to intrude on his space with what might be a silly conspiracy cause we don't discuss things like this but I might give it a go.

Anything in the world can be used nefariously. Time will tell

In case anyone is wondering, here is a image of nano particles and red blood cells:


www.researchgate.net...