Shaping the wireless coverage area - keeping it in the house

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps it might be something simple as sitting a stainless steel bowl
or mirror behind the hub, perhaps it might really require some
engineering.

Just a thought tossed out to see what discussion might come from it.


TBerk



TBerk

TBerk wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Perhaps it might be something simple as sitting a stainless steel bowl
> or mirror behind the hub, perhaps it might really require some
> engineering.
>
> Just a thought tossed out to see what discussion might come from it.
>
>
> TBerk
>

This NG has lots of references to antenna design. Google away.
--
Cheers, Bob

"TBerk" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.../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.

>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.
--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 15 Sep 2006 15:15:43 -0700, "TBerk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.

Build a Faraday cage around your house. That will keep out wardrivers as
well as the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

But don't blame me if you end up on the terrorist watch list...

TBerk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.

This was the genesis of the Freeantenna parabolic reflector.
Have a look at http://www.freeantennas.com

You can see the original story on the page
"The Original Parabolic Reflector Template".

I like the EZ-12 Windsurfer.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"TBerk" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:

>>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.

There are claims that aluminum foil works with mind control
(psychotronic) rays:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/links.html
I'm not convinced that they work as evident by the large number of
government employees that act more like zombies than humans.
Considering that the aluminum foil industry ships enough aluminum foil
to totally cover much of the United States, one would expect that the
country is well protected against mind control rays. However, the
zombification of much of the government is sufficient evidence that
the foil is largely ineffective.

For real protection, I recommend using software instead of tin foil:
http://zapatopi.net/mindguard/
After installing and using the software, I have successfully resisted
checking my email, avoided eBay looking for bargains, and even skipped
my turn with online gaming. The software has reinforced my self
control, dramatically reduced my tendencies toward compulsive internet
behavior, and allowed me to see subliminal suggestions in everything.
I'm waiting for the software upgrade that will immunize me against
compulsively posting absurdities in usenet newsgroups.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>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.
>
> There are claims that aluminum foil works with mind control
> (psychotronic) rays:
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/links.html
> I'm not convinced that they work as evident by the large number of
> government employees that act more like zombies than humans.
> Considering that the aluminum foil industry ships enough aluminum foil
> to totally cover much of the United States, one would expect that the
> country is well protected against mind control rays. However, the
> zombification of much of the government is sufficient evidence that
> the foil is largely ineffective.
>
> For real protection, I recommend using software instead of tin foil:
> http://zapatopi.net/mindguard/
> After installing and using the software, I have successfully resisted
> checking my email, avoided eBay looking for bargains, and even skipped
> my turn with online gaming. The software has reinforced my self
> control, dramatically reduced my tendencies toward compulsive internet
> behavior, and allowed me to see subliminal suggestions in everything.
> I'm waiting for the software upgrade that will immunize me against
> compulsively posting absurdities in usenet newsgroups.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann

you use AOL `s software then ? )

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>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.
>
>There are claims that aluminum foil works with mind control
>(psychotronic) rays:
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/links.html
>I'm not convinced that they work as evident by the large number of
>government employees that act more like zombies than humans.
>Considering that the aluminum foil industry ships enough aluminum foil
>to totally cover much of the United States, one would expect that the
>country is well protected against mind control rays. However, the
>zombification of much of the government is sufficient evidence that
>the foil is largely ineffective.
>
>For real protection, I recommend using software instead of tin foil:
> http://zapatopi.net/mindguard/
>After installing and using the software, I have successfully resisted
>checking my email, avoided eBay looking for bargains, and even skipped
>my turn with online gaming. The software has reinforced my self
>control, dramatically reduced my tendencies toward compulsive internet
>behavior, and allowed me to see subliminal suggestions in everything.
>I'm waiting for the software upgrade that will immunize me against
>compulsively posting absurdities in usenet newsgroups.
>

I hope the mail man never makes this last delivery, too much fun would be
lost.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

"Rico" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:zefPg.366$P%(E-Mail Removed)...

> 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.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

alien