In article <8qcog25tp7ja1i9k3gf3hsgq1rci1fn9vi@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>"TBerk" <bayareaberk@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>>I was wondering if there was any thought to shielding and/or guiding
>>the wireless signal, to 'aim' it so to speak and thereby preventing
>>(at least the majority) of it from broadcasting all over the place.
>
>Yep. anti Wi-Fi wallpaper. See:
>| http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6240
>|
> http://www.baesystems.com/ocs/shared...mats/stlthwall
>.htm
>Blocks 2.4GHz, and passes everything else. Turn your house into a
>frequency selective shield room.
>
>If you want to block everything, and not just wi-fi, then aluminum
>siding, foil backed roofing material, and aluminized mylar on the
>windows should do the trick. However, be advised that these are not
>effective against cosmic rays and whatever the government is using for
>mind control.

Whoa!! Tinfoil AKA aluminum foil works just fine for all but the most
intense government mind control rays. It is misleading of you to suggest
otherwise. Cosmc rays are another matter, depends on point of orign.


>
>>Of course the main line of security is encryption and password
>>protection. But I was also wondering about setting up something I'll
>>call 'shadow' to cut out whole regions that don't need any coverage in.
>
>Not easily. It's best to absorb RF rather then reflect it. That's
>how an anechoic (no echo) RF chamber works. The carbon cones on the
>wall absorb any RF that hits them. The cone shape disperses
>reflections and also makes the system more broadband than a wall.
> http://www.tdkrfsolutions.com/WebDat...m-WebSheet.htm
> http://www.lehman-inc.com
> http://www.garwoodlabs.com/worldemc/3meter.html
>Living in such a chamber would be spooky. It also deadens the ambient
>sounds, which causes ones hearing sensitivity to increase. I could
>hear my heart beating and blood sloshing through my circulatory
>system.
>
>Of course, you could use the opposite approach and simply install a
>wi-fi jammer near the likely parking places or directed at the
>troublesome neighbors. It would not need to be very powerful. If you
>want to sweep the entire neighborhood, an antenna attached to a
>microwave oven should give you temporary air superiority (until the
>antenna melts).
> http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/misch...netr/index.htm
>Note: You'll need a ham radio license to do this.
>
>>An example; a home user places a wireless router in the corner of the
>>room near the phone jack. Since the wireless node is sitting up against
>>two walls why not block/reflect the signals coming from it back towards
>>the rest of the property, perhaps in some way gaining the benefit of
>>increasing security against roving folks who might seek to tap your
>>signal.
>
>One of the local coffee shops had the same problem. They didn't like
>having the neighbors using the connection. I came up with a fairly
>complex method of measuring the distance between the client and the
>access point. Anything off premisis was simply dropped. The owner
>didn't like it (too expensive) so he just turned down the access point
>xmit power. End of problem.
>
>>Besides the seemingly paranoid aspect there might also be some improved
>>reception to be had from concentrating, focusing if you will a directed
>>signal _towards_ the intended recipient in the dwelling. Even if it's
>>intended for a roving laptop the coverage doesn't need to be a full 360
>>degree bubble around the wireless hub.
>
>You can redirect the signal with reflectors. Using the room as a
>reflect methinks is a bit overkill. Something like:
> http://www.freeantannas.com
>is more appropriate.
>
>>Perhaps it might be something simple as sitting a stainless steel bowl
>>or mirror behind the hub, perhaps it might really require some
>>engineering.
>
>Have you checked with your wife or ladyfriend about this? There's
>certainly a limit as to how much redecoration you'll be able to do. I
>don't think a large salad bowl hidden behind a mirror will pass the
>aesthetics tests. I realize that the uglier the antenna, the better
>it works, but that's only for outdoor antennas. Interior antennas and
>reflectors should be regarded as furniture and must be color matched,
>pleasing to the eye, child safe, etc. Ummm... don't use my house as a
>suitable example.
>
>>Just a thought tossed out to see what discussion might come from it.
>
>Geee, I thought you were serious.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.