From: Keith R. Williams
Subject: Re: Tracker implant for children - Real or Fake?
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:12:39 -0400
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
In article ,
> In article ,
> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
> >On 08 Sep 2002, email@example.com (Bob Wilson) said:
> >> The RF attenuation issue assumes that there is any signal to attenuate
> >> in the first place. At any reasonable frequency (let's say 2GHz at the
> >> maximum), the "antenna" in this thing is so electrically short, that
> >> its radiation efficiency will be hopeless. It will need a LOT of RF
> >> power just to get a reasonable signal level. Problems with body
> >> attenuation are trivial by comparison.
> >> Bob.
> >At 2GHz, you could probably fit a proper 1/2 wave dipole in the implant.
> >A 1/4 wave would definitely fit. However, it would be surrounded by
> >grounded conductive tissue! Seems hopeless to me. Considering the
> >present hysteria and uncertainty regarding cellphone transmission health
> >effects, I don't think it would be prudent to implant transmitters of
> >equal or greater peak RF power.
> That would be a hell of an implant. At 2 GHz, a quarter of a wavelength is
> (in air, anyway) is almost an inch and a half. It would be more than a
> little difficult to integrate THAT into a chip (and besides, what about the
> ground plane that replaces the missing quarter wave?).
Interesting discussion here, but 1/20 wavelength is the ol' rule-
o-thumb for antennas. That brings it down to 1/4" -ish.
Implanting it in wetware makes things really ugly. I'm sold.