Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Message-ID: <44567E97.2050205@wp.pl>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 23:33:11 +0200
From: Marek SQ5BPM <sq5bpm@wp.pl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <4455EC86.2050807@wp.pl> <44567AF2.7000506@ukonline.co.uk> <011501c66d63$e1d39e90$0300a8c0@LAPTOP>
In-Reply-To: <011501c66d63$e1d39e90$0300a8c0@LAPTOP>
Subject: Re: LF: EMF sensitivity?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Hello Peter,

Peter Martinez wrote:
>> From Peter G3PLX:
> Marek:
>
> The 'rash' or 'burning' effect makes me think of sunburn or exposure 
> to ultra-violet light.
>
> Could it be that there is some ionisation, perhaps due to high 
> voltages, which gives off UV radiation which could affect the skin of 
> the face if it's directly in front of the operator?  It would be easy 
> to test this idea by operating the equipment in a low light level and 
> probing the area with a some object that was known to be fluorescent, 
> like a UV-sensitive marker pen.

I thought about something connected with the high voltage as well - 
maybe high electrostatic field etc. I didn't know that ionisation may 
cause UV radiation. I will check the idea, placing a banknote near the 
coil output ;)

The UV idea makes sense, the rash appeared on the side of  my face being 
in direct 'exposure' to the coil, not at the side of the transmitter.

73! Marek SQ5BPM