Looking for a mono head set...

---

Hey all.

Im looking for a mono head set for use when driving. I looked all over, but no luck. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by shamus072

Hey all.

Im looking for a mono head set for use when driving. I looked all over, but no luck. Any ideas?

the adapter that came with your device.... use it and then use any 2.5mm or 3.5mm mono earpiece.

Thanks for the respose... I would still need one with a mic in it. Are they out there?

Let me be the first to say. WHY!?!?!?! An ok BT headset is about the same price as a miniUSB mono headset. I would suggest you better spend $10 more on a BT headset.

Originally Posted by Kraize

Let me be the first to say. WHY!?!?!?! An ok BT headset is about the same price as a miniUSB mono headset. I would suggest you better spend $10 more on a BT headset.

+1, on that!!!

I know you guys are aware of this but I will say it anyway. For the young and the old, it is advised to use a wired headset to reduce the radiation exposure. The majority of data on this subject is conflicting, but some are be proactively cautious.

Originally Posted by aadadams

I know you guys are aware of this but I will say it anyway. For the young and the old, it is advised to use a wired headset to reduce the radiation exposure. The majority of data on this subject is conflicting, but some are be proactively cautious.

If your so worried about radiation exposure, then why would having a wired headset that makes you keep the phone within closer reach than a bluetooth headset would, make a difference.

Besides radiation is not the correct term for what your describing, the correct term is "RFI" radio frequency interference, As well a "EMI" electromagnetic interference Neither of witch dangerously result in spurious emissions.

HERE Read up.....


EMI/RFI types

EMI or RFI may be broadly categorized into two types; narrowband and broadband.

Narrowband interference usually arises from intentional transmissions such as radio and TV stations, pager transmitters, cell phones, etc. Broadband interference usually comes from incidental radio frequency emitters. These include electric power transmission lines, electric motors, thermostats, bug zappers, etc. Anywhere electrical power is being turned off and on rapidly is a potential source. The spectra of these sources generally resembles that of synchrotron sources, stronger at low frequencies and diminishing at higher frequencies, though this noise is often modulated, or varied, by the creating device in some way. Included in this category are computers and other digital equipment as well as televisions. The rich harmonic content of these devices means that they can interfere over a very broad spectrum. Characteristic of broadband RFI is an inability to filter it effectively once it has entered the receiver chain. [2][3]
[4]

EMI in Integrated Circuits

Electromagnetic compatibility

Integrated circuits are often a source of EMI, but they are never the "antenna". They must couple their energy to larger objects such as heatsinks, circuit board planes and cables to radiate significantly [5].

On integrated circuits, important means of reducing EMI are: the use of bypass or "decoupling" capacitors on each active device (connected across the power supply, as close to the device as possible), rise time control of high-speed signals using series resistors[6], and VCC filtering. Shielding is usually a last resort after other techniques have failed because of the added expense of RF gaskets and the like.

The efficiency of the radiation depends on the height above the ground or power plane (at RF one is as good as the other) and the length of the conductor in relation to the wavelength of the signal component (fundamental, harmonic or transient (overshoot, undershoot or ringing)). At lower frequencies, such as 133 MHz, radiation is almost exclusively via I/O cables; RF noise gets onto the power planes and is coupled to the line drivers via the VCC and ground pins. The RF is then coupled to the cable through the line driver as common-mode noise. Since the noise is common-mode, shielding has very little effect, even with differential pairs. The RF energy is capacitively coupled from the signal pair to the shield and the shield itself does the radiating. One cure for this is to use a braid-breaker or choke to reduce the common-mode signal.

At higher frequencies, usually above 500 MHz, traces get electrically longer and higher above the plane. Two techniques are used at these frequencies: wave shaping with series resistors and embedding the traces between the two planes. If all these measures still leave too much EMI, shielding such as RF gaskets and copper tape can be used. Most digital equipment is designed with metal, or conductive-coated plastic, cases.

Susceptibilities of different radio technologies

Interference tends to be more troublesome with older radio technologies such as analogue amplitude modulation, which have no way of distinguishing unwanted in-band signals from the intended signal, and the omnidirectional dipole antennas used with broadcast systems. Newer radio systems incorporate several improvements that improve the selectivity. In digital radio systems, such as Wi-Fi, error-correction techniques can be used. Spread-spectrum and frequency-hopping techniques can be used with both analogue and digital signalling to improve resistance to interference. A highly directional receiver, such as a parabolic antenna or a diversity receiver, can be used to select one signal in space to the exclusion of others.

The most extreme example of digital spread-spectrum signalling to date is ultra-wideband (UWB), which proposes the use of large sections of the radio spectrum at low amplitudes to transmit high-bandwidth digital data. UWB, if used exclusively, would enable very efficient use of the spectrum, but users of non-UWB technology are not yet prepared to share the spectrum with the new system because of the interference it would cause to their receivers. The regulatory implications of UWB are discussed in the Ultra-wideband article.

Interference to consumer devices

Complex electronic circuitry is found in all sorts of devices used in the home. This results in a vast interference potential that didn't exist in earlier, simpler decades. In the US, Public Law 97-259, enacted in 1982, gave the FCC the authority to regulate the susceptibility of consumer electronic equipment sold in the United States. The FCC, working with equipment manufacturers, decided to allow them to develop standards for EMI immunity and implement their own voluntary compliance programs.[7]

Broadcast transmitters, two-way radio transmitters, paging transmitters, and cable TV are potential sources of RFI and EMI.[8] Other possible sources of interference include a wide variety of devices, such as doorbell transformers, toaster ovens, electric blankets, ultrasonic pest control devices, electric bug zappers, heating pads, and touch controlled lamps. Multiple CRT computer monitors or televisions sitting too close to one another can sometimes cause a "shimmy" effect in each another, due to the electromagnetic nature of their picture tubes, especially when one of their de-gaussing coils is activated.

Switching inductive loads, such as electric motors, off causes interference, but it is easily suppressed by connecting a snubber network, a resistor in series with a capacitor, across the switch. Exact values can be optimised for each case, but 100 ohms in series with 100 nanofarads is usually satisfactory.

Switched-mode power supply can be a source of EMI, but have become less of a problem as design techniques have improved, such as integrated power factor correction.

Most countries have legal requirements that mandates electromagnetic compatibility: electronic and electrical hardware must still work correctly when subjected to certain amounts of EMI, and should not emit EMI which could interfere with other equipment (such as radios).

Thanks for expanding. For the record, my statement was written in lay terms. Additionally, the term I chose was apt, as radiation can (and does) originate from RF sources and/or electromagnetic sources, but no matter the source it is still radiation. My information comes from the American Medical Association AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine NEJM. I do not profess to know the impact of prolonged exposure to RADIATION from cell phones, but some clinicians feel it wise to limit the exposure of children as there brains have not fully developed and the elderly due to their susceptability to illness. Until a couple months ago I was an active cancer researcher, and my PhD is in bioanalytical chemistry.

Originally Posted by KD8DNS

the adapter that came with your device.... use it and then use any 2.5mm or 3.5mm mono earpiece.

Does the included adapter support headsets with microphones?

Originally Posted by aadadams

Thanks for expanding. For the record, my statement was written in lay terms. Additionally, the term I chose was apt, as radiation can (and does) originate from RF sources and/or electromagnetic sources, but no matter the source it is still radiation. My information comes from the American Medical Association AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine NEJM. I do not profess to know the impact of prolonged exposure to RADIATION from cell phones, but some clinicians feel it wise to limit the exposure of children as there brains have not fully developed and the elderly due to their susceptability to illness. Until a couple months ago I was an active cancer researcher, and my PhD is in bioanalytical chemistry.

Not trying to argue. But from my standpoint (im not a doc) However I have numerous FCC licenses. I am the senior regional technician for AT&T northeast division. We have done numerous field tests on all kinds of medical equipment to ensure the safe operation of the end user. This was more of a worry back in the days of the 3 watt analogue devices, but now a days we use devices that PEP (peak power output) in the milliwatts.

For years in the lab we have used cell site emulators with various medical devices, hired doctors to aid in research, back in the analogue days this was true and I have seen it first hand. Now when we do in lab tests no major interference is even documented. No I am NOT saying for a individual with a pacemaker to go for it.

I'm not arguing with you, we can agree to disagree, You have your area of expertise and I have mine, we could go on for days. However there has never really been any conclusive evidence that gives a accurate cause to this, at this time its only speculation. I am also VERY familiar with all of the publication in the AMA, I read them all the time, my wife is a cardiologist in Cincinnati.

For the record, I hate when people use the word "radiation" in a statement of "spread spectrum". The first instinct id "oh goodness radiation can kill me" were as radiation is all around you every day all day long. Unless you live in a Faraday cage in a dark room. That is why i felt it necessary to explain differences.