Live data from Hacker News

Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

mattblaze.org

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#61
post #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. N…

If you consider the compactification of R^3 by a single point “at infinity”, an electric charge inside the surface is the same as the opposite charge at infinity (this is just Gauss’ result). In that sense, “infinity” acts as the opposite charge, does it not? I do not understand your question, otherwise. (Not a criticism, just an interested comment which may be very wrong though).

> If you consider the compactification of R^3 by a single point “at infinity”, an electric charge inside the surface is the same as the opposite charge at infinity (this is just Gauss’ result)

This is a mental operation, not physically possible. The difference is real: for example, charge inside a perfect conductor cavity generates electrostatic field outside. A charge outside perfect conductor cavity does not generate any static field inside.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#62
post #28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to believe this would perform better than a Lazzaroni tin. And I don't recall ever finding one of these things in a hotel room, even in Europe.

Depends what the tin and shaker are made of. The tin is probably made of aluminum which has a higher skin depth than stainless steel, which I assume the shaker cups are made of. A Faraday cage of continuous surface needs walls that are thicker than the skin depth of the material the cage is made of. Since the skin depth of stainless steel is lower, the cage wall thickness can be lower while still creating an effectiv…

The tin is painted, and paint is nonconductive. A very thin long slit in an otherwise conductive surface or mesh can be extremely leaky.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#63
Glad to see these tested. I've been using the EDEC bags for probably a decade to have on hand for incident response/forensics in security consulting, but I never had the gear to test the bags, I just trusted their supplier. Good to know about millimeter wave / 5g though.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#64
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ground your faraday cages. Why?

I assume for the same reason you ground your home, building up charges is a great way for Bad Things to happen.

Why would a phone pouch/box build up great charge? You don't ground your home because of charge buildup either - grounding is there to decrease the chance a thunderbolt will run through precious things, like house walls, people, electric wiring etc.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microwave-ovens definitely don't leak below 2.4 GHz. Any frequency above that is a non-issue for microwave-oven operator safety. It also wouldn't be an issue for any communication device transmitting below 2.4 GHz. If you want to shut down 5 GHz communication then a microwave-oven would be leaky. 60 GHz: it shouldn't matter since it needs LoS anyway. Also, remember to ground your faraday cages.

> ground your faraday cages. Why?

Better performance. Faraday cages can act as reradiators at frequencies dependent on cage geometry.

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#66
post #26
post #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 t…

What's the physics behind being able to make a container light-tight with a couple of right angle corners yet radio waves seem to leak out like water?

Does the right-angle corner trick still work if the container surfaces are made of mirrors?

Re: Testing Phone-Sized Faraday Bags

#69

> 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…

The simplest test you can make to verify that the microwave oven & biscuit tin can are good Faraday cages is to put your phone in one and try to call it - every time I did that in the past they failed to function as a Faraday cage. Edit: clarification.

That's an easy way to verify failure (phone rings) but not success - unless the only thing you care about blocking is phone calls I suppose.
Post reply on HN