 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Sprint PCS / June 2008What is happening here?
In this video you will see people using their cell phones to pop popcorn: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18 You'll also see that there are at least a few other videos of the same experiment, with the same result. I wasn't able to find any explanation for this on line, although I didn't check for long. On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never found those arguments convincing. Anyone? DGI In news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: > In this video you will see people using their cell phones to > pop popcorn: No, you won't.  SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >In news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com David G. Imber ><imber@maniform.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, you won't. You get an A for concision, but not such a high grade for thoroughness. Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if you'd be so kind. Thanks, DGI In news:623b44h3fbbcu4flg88sk24lemni7t86km@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: >>In news:ej0b4495hrev7kdnlkp6105hng4ilui2sj@4ax.com David G. Imber >><imber@maniform.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if > you'd be so kind. What you're seeing is a joke. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >> Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if >> you'd be so kind. > >What you're seeing is a joke. That is an explanation of a certain sort. Sorry to trouble you, you obviously don't know the answer. DGI In news:tc9b44lk7auokhka1a13gk498j268om1df@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: >>> Maybe it's not clear that I'm asking for an explanation, if >>> you'd be so kind. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is an explanation of a certain sort. Sorry to trouble > you, you obviously don't know the answer. Good luck. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >In news:tc9b44lk7auokhka1a13gk498j268om1df@4ax.com David G. Imber ><imber@maniform.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Good luck. Thanks, Minnesota.Obviously I'm assuming it's a hoax, and the answer is probably right out there and I'm blindly missing it. But there are several instances of this on the Web, and in most cases there are people responding "it's a hoax", as you did, but offering no explanation. I will believe that it's a hoax when there is evidence from which to draw that conclusion. I cannot see any. Skepticism works in all directions. DGI In news:a7cb445escqetqud8qol977tiv0v0sdu8n@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: > I will believe that it's a hoax when there is evidence > from which to draw that conclusion. Rather than believing any magic trick they're shown, most people take a different approach and assume it's a trick until offered proof that it's real. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >In news:a7cb445escqetqud8qol977tiv0v0sdu8n@4ax.com David G. Imber ><imber@maniform.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >different approach and assume it's a trick until offered proof that it's >real. You're not getting me, which is why I was arguing with your initial responses (respectfully). I ASSUMED it was a trick. I'm the most reason-based person you'll meet. But tricks have solutions. I haven't seen one from you or anyone else. Therefore I can't call it a trick until I see evidence of how it came to be. Right now I have a video which, on the surface, gives me nothing (or at least I can spot nothing) like evidence. I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick, but an assumption with no inherent truth value. DGI In news:17nb445udccsklaiolgipqtldc5esu0rfs@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: > Right now I have a video which, on the surface, gives me nothing (or > at least I can spot nothing) like evidence. How do you expect to find "evidence" in a low-resolution video that shows you only what the maker wants you to see? > I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick, but an assumption with > no inherent truth value. How much water is in a kernel of corn? How much energy is required to raise that quantity of water from room temperature to boiling in the period of time shown? How much energy can you get out of 4 conventional cell phones? How much of that energy can you transfer from those cell phones into a kernel of corn in the period of time shown in the physical configuation shown? SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >In news:17nb445udccsklaiolgipqtldc5esu0rfs@4ax.com David G. Imber ><imber@maniform.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >How do you expect to find "evidence" in a low-resolution video that >shows you only what the maker wants you to see? I do not. That is what prompted my request for an explanation. Unfortunately, no one has offered any. >> I'm left with an assumption that it's a trick, but an assumption with >> no inherent truth value. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >period of time shown? How much energy can you get out of 4 conventional >cell phones? How much of that energy [snip] I am under no illusion that you can pop corn with a cell phone. Nor do I believe that Mr. Mentalist can bend spoons w/his brain. But when I see them bend I simply want to know how it's done. That story is generally far more interesting and amusing than "magic". I have not yet heard such a story in this case, nor any story that makes sense. "It's a hoax" does nothing for me. DGI In news:1cmd44h7edr5sactlcuo6ndmdjmaraji12@4ax.com David G. Imber <imber@maniform.com> wrote: > I am under no illusion that you can pop corn with a cell > phone. Nor do I believe that Mr. Mentalist can bend spoons w/his > brain. But when I see them bend I simply want to know how it's done. > That story is generally far more interesting and amusing than "magic". > I have not yet heard such a story in this case, nor any story that > makes sense. "It's a hoax" does nothing for me. As I sad before, when the only "evidence" you're given is a low-resolution video produced in an environment entirely under the control of the hoaxer, there's nothing else to say. If you want more, the only place you're going to get it is from the producers of the joke video. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com > In this video you will see people using their cell phones to > pop popcorn: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You'll also see that there are at least a few other videos of > the same experiment, with the same result. Here's another: http://youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this experiment if you haven't got one yourself. Dennis Ferguson >What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the >red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a >feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this >experiment if you haven't got one yourself. I don't see such a thing in the video you posted. Where is it? DGI >>What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the >>red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a >>feeling you are going to have some difficulty reproducing this >>experiment if you haven't got one yourself. > > I don't see such a thing in the video you posted. Where is it? In my video it is the "phone" that the woman puts on the table. In your video it is the "phone" on the lower left when the camera is focused on the popcorn. Whatever that is, the same device is used in both videos and it really doesn't look much like a phone. Dennis Ferguson >>>What I'd like to know is what the grey and white thing with the >>>red power button is. It appears in both videos, and I've got a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Whatever that is, the same device is used in both videos and it >really doesn't look much like a phone. That's the remote control for the Magnetron hidden under the table. (kidding) SignaturePaul Miner >Whatever that is, the same device is used in both videos and it >really doesn't look much like a phone. Nah, that's a phone. I mean, what else would it be? It would only be a functional part of the trick if it were a directional microwave transmitter, but it's surely not. I'll tell you something else about my video, before anyone brings it up. The table the participants are sitting at is called a "kotatsu" and it does indeed have a heating element beneath it. But that element is at the center of the table, and the surface of the table doesn't become even warm. It's a common furnishing in Japanese apartments. DGI > On the face of it, this seems to add weight to the idea that > cell phones are potentially hazardous to health, but I have never > found those arguments convincing. What's really hilarious is to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsH88jVNmU 100,000 watts of high microwave energy directed to you and it's 100% safe..... The age of passive resistance and legal protest is OVER! Of course, now the technology is available, the nuts take over and make their own. Watch the test at longer and longer range. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32OyUlpzht4&feature=related When will they turn this weapon on US? The minute we start waking up to why gas is $5/gallon and climbing..... This weapon is FAR higher in frequency and millions of times more powerful than this stupid sellphone..... .....and they tell us it's SAFE! > In this video you will see people using their cell phones to > pop popcorn: In Madrid, terrorists used cell phones to set off bombs in the subway system. Cheers, Jim Why does my Samsung Sprint phone drop from an excellent signal to dropped call to Digital Roam and back -- all within, say 15 seconds while sitting on my desk at home in "Speaker" mode without anyone touching it or moving in the same room? Is this a phenomena unique to Sprint? I've called their support and the answer is "You shouldn't have that probelm" but no expanation. I'm in Brooklyn, NY. I also notice Digital Roam popping up in midtown Manhattan (38th and Broadway, for example), crossing the Manhattan Bridge on the Subway and other unexpected places. Is the coverage that bad? If so, anyone have any suggestions as to a more reliable carrier within New York City? Cheers, Jim >Why does my Samsung Sprint phone drop from an excellent signal to dropped >call to Digital Roam and back -- all within, say 15 seconds while sitting on >my desk at home in "Speaker" mode without anyone touching it or moving in >the same room? > >Is this a phenomena unique to Sprint? Trust me on this, I had a four month ordeal in which I had plenty of opportunity to study what was going on. I asked folks here for help, and although no one could provide any answers, they thankfully led me in the right direction. Here's the very abbreviated story: I cannot guarantee with certainty that your case is exactly the same as mine, but you can check. Go into your phone's menu to the advanced settings. You'll see the SID, Channel, and frequency settings. Your channel setting should be (probably) 625 or 650. Possibly 600, but whatever it is, it should NOT CHANGE when the phone is idle. If you see that it is switching erratically, try to get as high on the tech ladder as you can and explain this (that your phone's channel is fluctuating on its own when you're not talking on it). They can fix this at the back end. I hope that this helps you localize the problem, and I hope that you can get to someone willing to take responsibility for helping you. The fix is nothing, but getting someone to agree to affect it required four months of nearly hour-long conversations every business day and one Saturday. I won't bore you with the details or how many useless, foolish things they did rather than actually fix the problem. The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone service now. DGI Thanks! I'll watch for that. I'm on 650 at the moment . . . I'll keep an eye on it. > The good news is that I pay relatively little for phone > service now. And still with Sprint ?? <g> Cheers, Jim >Thanks! I'll watch for that. I'm on 650 at the moment . . . I'll keep an >eye on it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And still with Sprint ?? <g> Yes. You see, I've been with them for nine years, and I had never before and have never since had a bit of trouble with the service. I travel around the country for my work and I've never been disappointed with that aspect of Sprint's operation. This was my wife's phone, and it went haywire right after the Sprint-Nextel merger (that's relevant, actually, but I promised I wouldn't bore you with the copious details). I fought so hard and so long to make it right because I knew that when the phone was working, the service was sterling. As a result of my incredible inconvenience they gave me a significant rate discount, and that made it harder to abandon them. My contract is up now, and since there will probably be lots of changes in the cellular field this year, I may not stay with Sprint. I'm extremely tired of having to deal with them, even if it's only about once every two years. It's true that once you get your service set up and working the way you want it, it just hums along in most cases without any further trouble. But if you must deal with customer service you can be about 100% sure something will go wrong. I recently made an inquiry about my bill and sure enough, the next month the figures were screwed up. After just an INQUIRY ABOUT BILLING! Their customer service is totally hopeless, and I'm just tired of it. What I went through to get my wife's phone fixed, when I was able to give them incontrovertible proof that the fault was on their side and fixable from the main office, was just beyond the pale. But as I say, when it was fixed, it worked like a hammer, as it always had before, and now it was cheaper. That's why (the only reason why) I'm still with Sprint. DGI > In this video you will see people using their cell phones to > pop popcorn: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18 It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story. >> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to >> pop popcorn: >> >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju5yIFu4yY8&fmt=18 > > It was all a hoax, according to a CNN story. Yep... http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/bluetooth-compa.html SignatureDutch Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008 >>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to >>> pop popcorn: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/bluetooth-compa.html Yeah, I was under no illusions whatsoever when I posted my question asking how it was done. And you'll notice that even in the article above and the one it references in Wired, there's no explanation. But this puts the important part of the puzzle in place. When I originally asked what was happening here people just answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a reason. But even on the assumption it was a hoax, the most likely actual reason for the kernels "popping" was video editing. From my own experience I know that to do that as seamlessly as it appears here costs significant money. So it made no sense that without any incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a farce. The incentive was the company's increased recognition and presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word). DGI >>>> In this video you will see people using their cell phones to >>>> pop popcorn: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > incentive people would go to such lengths simply to perpetrate a > farce. Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic" becomes a reasonable assumption. :-) > The incentive was the company's increased recognition and > presumed profit as a result. At last there appears something > resembling a "reason" for what's seen in those videos (for those who > seemed to have trouble with the definition of that word). Yep, while I don't approve of their "scare tactic" methodology, I can understand their motive... SignatureDutch Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008 >> When I originally asked what was happening here people just >> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh yeah, once the hoax was admitted, then any sort of "movie magic" >becomes a reasonable assumption. :-) Well, not exactly. I assumed a hoax from the first, but "movie magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch. What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit makes the assumption reasonable. DGI >>> When I originally asked what was happening here people just >>> answered "it's a hoax", which is just useless without offering a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > magic" costs $$$. All other possibilities, such as a camouflaged > heating surface, etc., were just too difficult a stretch. With today's methods, CGI just as likely as video editing, so I simply lumped it all as "movie magic". The exact method is irrelevant. > What seems reasonable is that someone (a corporation) was > willing to spend the money for a mildly sophisticated video effect > because they believed _they would get it back_. The promise of profit > makes the assumption reasonable. Of course there was a profit motive... SignatureDutch Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008 > In this video you will see people using their cell phones to > pop popcorn: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Anyone? DGI Its the method that the number of social security recipients will be trimmed...keep using those free weekend minutes munchkins...JG |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.