Live data from Hacker News

Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

mattblaze.org

11–20 of 205 posts

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#11

My understanding is that a Faraday Cage, of any size, relies on a proper grounding system to work at all so these boxes and rfid blocking pockets etc all seem to be tinfoil hats parading as space age metamaterials.

> relies on a proper grounding system to work at all

does not

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#12
post #7

At my former job we had a rather large faraday cage for testing telco equipment. Two things surprised me: 1) It is more fiddly to ensure a room-sized faraday cage doesn't leak RF than I thought. It is really easy to make mistakes that compromises experiments. 2) There was a bath-towel sized piece of cloth that came with one of the expensive Rohde & Schwarz instruments that was astonishingly effective at blocking sign…

I see one of the founders (Ulrich Rhode) of Rhode and Schwarz on amateur radio some times, and I always ask for test equipment and he always says no.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#13

That was really interesting. I can’t believe how poorly the metal tin box did compared to real faraday pouches.

The metal tin box will have had varnish and paint on it's surfaces. That means at the junction between the tin and the lid (and maybe other joins), there isn't an electrical connection all along. Having two metal surfaces next to eachother, but with an insulator in between, acts like a 'choke flange'[1]. However, they only work at one specific frequency - at all other frequencies they will leak either a little signal…

TIL! Thanks!

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#14

My understanding is that a Faraday Cage, of any size, relies on a proper grounding system to work at all so these boxes and rfid blocking pockets etc all seem to be tinfoil hats parading as space age metamaterials.

Nope: RF shielding has nothing to do with having a ground reference.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#15
I really like Snowden's recommended Faraday cage for phones or other devices of similar size: two drink-shaker cups[1].

Drink shakers are cheap and widely available. The average hotel room in any medium/large hotel chain probably includes a shaker as a standard item as part of the minibar. The simple two-cup style (as seen in [1]) is preferred over the fancier "strainer top" style because you can press the two cups together; this should cause the inner cup to slightly cut into and/or deform the outer cup along the circle where they join together. The seal between the cups should work sort of like the knife-edge seals used in vacuum chambers.

A metal box or conductive bag is only a Faraday cage if it is fully closed/sealed. Any imperfection in the seal or hole[2] might allow the radio signal to leak out. Most improvised items (freezer, random metal box, etc) have poor seals. Making a high quality cage that actually block a modern phone can be done without much trouble, but the drink shaker method is the only method I know of that will do the job using widely available (free) or very cheap ($10-ish?) parts.

[1] https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HLB1yRyhXZTxK1Rjy0Fgq6yovpXaZ/Win...

[2] Holes of sufficient size. How big are the waves you are trying to block?

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#16

> While the cookie tin performed much better than the mylar bags, and could provide a modicum of useful attenuation under some circumstances, it was not sufficient to provide meaningful assurance of signal isolation at any frequency. However, it was unique among the containers tested in providing tasty snacks during measurements Back in the day working for Symbian I used to regularly have to run a load of automated B…

Biscuit tins and aluminium foil have layers of insulation on them, the varnish of the tin and the Al2O3 oxide layer for the foil. It is true that the gap in each case is small, but when you look for 10 orders of magnitude in attenuation - a little leakage goes a long way. Silver has the unusual property in that both the metal and it's oxide are both conductors = true silver foil made of thin metallic silver will make a good wrap around Faraday bag. Even better would be true gold metal foil - note they often use gold plated shields in space uses, even though gold foil is like fly paper in space = contact welds readily, much more so than most other metals (many of which have also contact weld problems that have to be mitigated). Those Ramsey boxes are excellent, far better than many costlier, but crappier boxes, obviously made by someone who knows an ohm from a volt...

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#17
Interesting results. The article states that Faraday cages are no directional. My physics 101 understanding of them was otherwise. You show they work by integrating over the surface of the cage and saying that's equal to the charge within the surface. But you don't say it's equal to the charge outside. Indeed it couldn't possible, since that charge could be light-years away and steady state would never be achieved. Now that was for electrostatic which isn't really what we care about, if I remember correctly.

Wikipedia also states they are more effective at blocking incoming than outgoing signals. Can anyone clarify the situation?

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#20
post #19

If you are sufficiently concerned, why not mod the phone to add a physical battery disconnect? Would this not provide 100% protection?

Great idea! Kinda hard on glued smartphones, but still doable.

Just need a switch between the + terminal and the rest of the phone, right?

The more paranoid might think there's a backup battery somewhere, though.

Post reply on HN