Live data from Hacker News

Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

ismymicrowaveleaking.isotropic.us

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#41
post #8

Isn't it lovely how we're inundating our homes with radiation at wavelengths that can cook meat? It's as if we _want_ the robot revolution to succeed.

The only adverse effect microwaves have been found to have on humans is due to heating [1]. WiFi transmitters emit less than 1/1000 the power that a microwave oven does. Unless your cell phone starts to make you feel uncomfortably warm, I don't think you have to worry.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave#Effects_on_health

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#42

You would need to take your access point and wave it all around various directions in the space around the microwave. The “leak” could occur in a direction that doesn’t have significant signal. Might be a better test to cook a large bowl of water, while testing your phone (outside the oven) on 2.4ghz … holding it on all sides of the oven to see if any areas degrade the signal. This testing approach isn’t that conclus…

>This testing approach isn’t that conclusive.

Agreed. I just tested with two phones and one phone timed out but the other was able to maintain a connection. That would suggest that my microwave is maybe leaking. However I'm able to use the microwave without any noticeable effects from on 2.4ghz devices.

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#43

What does this chart indicate?

You load the web page on your phone, put it in to the microwave and close the door. The microwave should be a Faraday cage preventing microwave radiation getting through. Now the phone/web page cannot contact the internet. The chart stops updating. Unless there's a leak, then the chart continues updating while the phone is in the microwave. Then open the door and look if it could/couldn't keep pinging the server whil…

This doesn't answer GP's question. How does it work? Why does my workstation connected to my router via ethernet cable show wildly varying results? What is the unit of Y axis?

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#44
post #29

This thing is totally insane. Instructions are not clear at all and the risk that someone bakes a phone in a MWO or doesn't any other harmful thing is rather high. Please remove this post.

You need a basic level of competence to be allowed in the kitchen. - That is where most domestic accidents happen. Funny how kitchen stuff was thought to be women's work once.

>Funny how kitchen stuff was thought to be women's work once.

Clarification: domestic kitchen stuff was thought to be women's work, professional kitchen stuff was thought to be men's work (and still is[1]).

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-45486646

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#45
post #16
post #10

> 1. Put phone on 2.4ghz wifi (5GHZ WILL NOT WORK!) Might be nice to expand on "will not work". Wouldn't 5 GHz Wi-Fi failing to connect show that it's even better at blocking, and would easily block 2.45 GHz too? And I'd think that they should block 5 GHz too, since those meshes look quite fine, and they probably try to be extra-safe.

5GHz actually has worse penetration and stronger attenuation over distance than 2.4GHz. Succesfully blocking 5GHz does not imply the same for 2.4GHz. However I do agree that it's probably still gonna work because the faraday cages on microwaves are always overkill (even the cheap ones).

> 5GHz actually has worse penetration and stronger attenuation over distance than 2.4GHz. Succesfully blocking 5GHz does not imply the same for 2.4GHz.

In this case it could be the opposite: faraday cages only work for blocking wavelengths that are longer than the wavelength that it's designed for (presumably 2.4ghz). Therefore it could be blocking 2.4ghz but letting 5ghz waves through because it's too small to contain.

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#46
post #45
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5GHz actually has worse penetration and stronger attenuation over distance than 2.4GHz. Succesfully blocking 5GHz does not imply the same for 2.4GHz. However I do agree that it's probably still gonna work because the faraday cages on microwaves are always overkill (even the cheap ones).

> 5GHz actually has worse penetration and stronger attenuation over distance than 2.4GHz. Succesfully blocking 5GHz does not imply the same for 2.4GHz. In this case it could be the opposite: faraday cages only work for blocking wavelengths that are longer than the wavelength that it's designed for (presumably 2.4ghz). Therefore it could be blocking 2.4ghz but letting 5ghz waves through because it's too small to conta…

As long as the hole size in the faraday cage is much smaller than the wavelength, it will work. The front mesh of a microwave typically has openings on the order of millimeters, which is still good enough for 5GHz.

Re: Test Microwave for Radiation Leakage

#48
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remain in awe that we trust the very cheapest plastic under repeat load and thermal cycling to form a -40dB seal, turning 700W into 70mW It's the metal grid in the window (with holes smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves), and the metal shell of the cavity, not any "plastic." The same reason the metal grid works is why there doesn't need to be a perfect door seal. As long as as the gap is smaller than the…

> The same reason the metal grid works is why there doesn't need to be a perfect door seal. As long as as the gap is smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves, it's fine. The issue is the gap in a door normally forms a long line. The fact they interfere with WiFi should make it obvious the average microwaves faraday cage is far from perfect.

The point of a microwave to have a faraday cage is not for preventing interference with wifi; the cage is there for preventing the microwave microwaving the user. At an average power of 1000W, even a thousand-fold attenuation (-30dB) means 1 watt/30dBm leaks out, minuscule for humans but enough to saturate typical wifi receivers.
Post reply on HN