4 ms·
I'm skeptical of shielding yourself from RF noise having any detectable effect. Unless you have amalgam tooth fillings, that anecdotally can act as a crude dio
by meindnoch 2y ago
I'm skeptical of shielding yourself from RF noise having any detectable effect.
Unless you have amalgam tooth fillings, that anecdotally can act as a crude diode, and demodulate strong enough AM signals.
- cf100clunk 2y agoThe goal is not to prove or disprove any affects on one's physiology, but simply to have the experience of being free of RF and audio for the sake of it.
- stouset 2y agoI think the point is that even saying the "experience" of being free of RF implies a perception which does not exist. Plus it's well-known that you don't really get the full experience of this unless you manage to shield yourself from neutrinos by surrounding yourself with sufficiently-dense proto-neutron stars.
- cf100clunk 2y agoNeutrinos, cosmic rays, and extraterrestrial subatomic particle streams are not considered RF, right?
- stouset 2y agoIf we're going out of our way to eliminate things that cause zero perceptual experience I don't see why you would exclude them.
- cf100clunk 2y agoThose requirements were not specified, so were not designed or built. If you can increase the budget, we can write-up a proposal to wrangle some sufficiently-dense proto-neutron stars.
- jononor 2y agoRF anechoic chambers are, as a side effect of their construction, pretty low echo also when it comes to audible frequencies. I have spent a bit of time in one (EMC testing a product), and it was the quietest room I have been in by far.