Slashdot Mirror


Using Aluminum Oxide Paint To Secure Wi-Fi

eldavojohn writes "The BBC reports on people using aluminum oxide in their paint to block Wi-Fi signals from leaving their home or business. Aluminum oxide resonates at the same frequency as Wi-Fi signals and other radio waves, blocking data from going outside a building. It's not a flawless solution, as it may also block AM/FM signals. You or your neighbors may be unwittingly using this already, as most pre-finished wood flooring uses aluminum oxide as a protective coating."

26 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Cellphone reception? by beef+curtains · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't keeping radio signals in also have the unfortunately side effect of keeping radio signals out? While having a neighborhood coffee shop offer free wifi to paying customers while being an of oasis of cellphone-free peace & quiet would be sweet, having no cellphone reception at home because one desperately wants to prevent neighbors from stealing one's wifi seems very inconvenient (especially when setting up even the most basic built-in wireless router security would successfully do the trick in 99.9% of cases).

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    1. Re:Cellphone reception? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try reading more carefully:

      FTFA:

      While paints blocking lower frequencies have been available for some time, Mr Ohkoshi's technology is the first to absorb frequencies transmitting at 100GHz (gigahertz). Signals carrying a larger amount of data - such as wireless internet - travel at a higher frequency than, for example, FM radio.

      ...

      "Our current mobile phones work at much lower frequencies, around 1.5 gigahertz. But, our material can also absorb frequencies that low, so you could block phone signals from outside and stop people's phones ringing during the movie," he said.

      From the sounds of it, just about anything below 100 GHz gets blocked. That means cellphones, too.

    2. Re:Cellphone reception? by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A conductive metal has free electrons which will block and reflect any waves below its plasma frequency. However, an ionic solid does not have free electrons - instead, it has just a few resonant other mechanisms with limited range so it will block a more specific part of the electromagnetic spectrum than a metal would. The frequency of wifi signals happens to be in the range of one of these mechanisms for the paint used.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    3. Re:Cellphone reception? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Water molecules are famously resonant at 2.45 GHz, that's where microwave ovens operate,

      No, they're not. That's a myth. There's no water resonance at or near 2.45 GHz. Water absorbs at pretty much any microwave frequency, with stronger absorption the higher the frequency.

      If anything, you'd want to tune a microwave oven away from strong water resonances, because you want the radiation to penetrate (so as to heat the object evenly) and not be shallowly absorbed, which would result in uneven heating. (Note that a microwave oven is a cavity, so you don't need to absorb energy in a single pass-- it will resonate around until it does get absorbed.).

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re:Cellphone reception? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny thing about electromagnetic resonance. The wavelength in vacuum / free air matters only ... in vacuum / free air. The wavelength of a signal in a different medium, with presumably different dielectric constant and impedance will be ... different! Water molecules are famously resonant at 2.45 GHz, that's where microwave ovens operate, despite the vacuum wavelength of 2.45 GHz photons being about 12 cm. The inter- and intra-molecular impedance makes H2O absorb those photons quite well. Water is quite rather opaque at those frequencies, despite being transparent at higher frequencies, say in the visible spectrum, and despite individual H2O molecules being many orders of magnitude smaller than the vacuum wavelength of 2.54 GHz photons.

      Helpful hint for posters: if you don't know a damned thing about physics, don't answer questions as if you do.

      Helpful hint for moderators: if you don't know a damned thing about physics, don't mod up posts full of word-salad wharrgarbl like "intra-molecular impedance."

      http://www.howeverythingworks.org/prints.php?topic=microwave_ovens&page=4

    5. Re:Cellphone reception? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I stand corrected on the water resonance part.

      The impedance part, well, perhaps Mr. Pink Corner needs to understand more where resistance comes from. The reason that microwave ovens work at all is that there is a resistive (ie dissipative, lossy, real, call it what you will) component to the impedance of water at those frequencies, dissipating EM energy into heat. Here's a quote from the nicely informative link Mr. Pink Corner provided:

      Rather than interacting with the water molecules via a resonance, the microwaves in an oven heat the water by twisting its molecules rapidly back and forth so that they rub against one another. The molecules are heated by the molecular equivalent of sliding or dynamic friction. The choice of 2.45 gigahertz gives the water molecules about the right amount of time to twist in each direction. The precise frequency isn't important, but microwave ovens are required to operate at exactly 2.45 gigahertz so that they don't interfere with communication systems using nearby frequencies.

      And here's another clue about physics, Mr. Pink Corner, when you have a complex impedance, like an RC circuit in a lumped model system, the speed of light through those components is determined by the RC time constant. The speed of light is slowed by the reactive portion of the impedance. In that system. Otherwise the movement of the current would not be impeded and the full voltage would appear at the far side of the C element instantaneously. But it does not: the speed of propagation is slowed, as reflected in the time constant. This becomes especially evident when you look at transmission lines and the impedance of the line determines the propagation speed (as well as the line loss due to heating of the real component of the impedance). Same thing in water, except, as I've been corrected, there is no resonance at 2.45 GHz.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    6. Re:Cellphone reception? by sunderland56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason is that it can interfere with emergency calls even outside the building.

      Actually the primary reason that jammers are illegal is that they are unlicensed. All unlicensed transmitters are illegal in the USA.

      There is also a section of the FCC rules that prohibits interference in most cases, and absolutely prohibits willful interference.

    7. Re:Cellphone reception? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was this in the USA? The reason is that doing this, while so very nice to prevent the idiots who don't know how to put their phones on vibrate from bothering everyone else, is also highly illegal.

      I think you are confusing active vs. passive blocking. Active blocking is illegal as it involves transmitting signals on the same frequencies as are used by cellphones, and this is regulated spectrum. Passive blocking, by using special paints or metal screens is perfectly legal.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  2. Extra protection? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm already using aluminum foil lining in many of my hats and clothes to protect me from the government transmissions. However, I hadn't heard that Al2O3 was any better than straight aluminum foil.

    It seems suspicious that this story would be posted immediately after I began considering papering my walls with foil.

    1. Re:Extra protection? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting
      May not be better but it could be more, how shall we say, stylish. Maybe quieter as well. I do like his pandering to the 'think of the children' racket.

      "We're assuming that excessive exposure could be bad for us. Therefore we're trying to make protective clothes for young children or pregnant women to help protect their bodies from such waves."

      Give me a break. Next think he'll be trying to create is an Aluminum oxide / silver dip - keep away nasty radio waves and germs, all in one toxic package.

      I think this guy is mostly looking for some investors.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Extra protection? by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Funny

      You might want to read this article on the effectiveness of foil helmets. ;)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:Extra protection? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were a science teacher, I think I would have a weekly contest "What's wrong with this?". I'd give all the kids a website, newspaper article, creationist newsletter (probably lose my job over that one but oh well), etc... and have them come up with a list of all the reasons that it is nonsense. Start with easy stuff (like the difference between EM and Ionizing radiation) and move to more challanging things later (like what a valid sample size is). We need to expose kids to the idea that not everything they read is gospel, to think critically about what they read and see and actually apply their education.

    4. Re:Extra protection? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, not Supperman! He brings me my dinner!

    5. Re:Extra protection? by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah yes, the elusive Supperman. I was very unhappy when Marvel finally decided to have him killed off by his arch-nemesis Bulimiax.

      I still cherish my pristine copy of Supperman #103, in which he manages to incapacitate the entire Third Reich by making them fall asleep after a huge turkey dinner.

  3. Finally!! by Ludedude · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a way to stop wearing this itchy tinfoil hat!

    --
    Then != than you morons.
  4. "By coating an entire room..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't you have to paint over the windows?

  5. Hey, it's good enough for the office... by d474 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dipped my head in this aluminum oxide paint, and it keeps all their signals out. Granted, I look somewhat like a cyborg now, but this stuff should work just fine for an office trying to keep their signals in.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  6. Note: AlFeO *not* Al2O3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note, the material concerned is Aluminium IRON oxide. Big difference. Aluminium oxide is a good dielectric and would be bugger all use for RF shielding. Oh and the article is a wierd too: it talks about 100GHz shielding where WiFi bands are ~ 2.5GHz.

  7. Does not resonate with me by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dunno where they got the crap about "resonates".

    The paint might act as an electrostatic shield, or as a lossy dielectric, both effects that will attenuate RF signals.

      But resonate, no.

    1. Re:Does not resonate with me by _avs_007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously... I work with a WiFi lab at work... I have a Faraday Cage in our lab... One of the techs forgot to install an optical isolator on the network cables, so for a few days the ethernet cables went right into the cage... Well, first day I went to use it, I locked myself in the cage, and was surprised that my cellphone started ringing... Without the optical isolators on the network cable, the RF signals were able to find there way into the faraday cage through the ethernet cables....

      with that being said, I highly doubt that simply painting your walls will keep RF signals at bay... Even when the grounding wire was simply loose on the door to the faraday cage, RF signals would leak in...

    2. Re:Does not resonate with me by quatin · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you went inside a Faraday Cage with an unprotected ethernet cable and managed to get cell phone reception. I on the other hand, can't get cell phone reception if I stand too close to my filing cabinet. I either need to switch to your provider or you need to come do your WiFi experiments next to my filing cabinet.

  8. Why not share wi-fi? by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We do know the world would be a better place if everyone shared their wi-fi securely using
    a technology like FON, don't we. (No I'm not associated with the company. Just recognize a
    great concept when I see one.)

    I'm seriously tired of how, particularly in the US, sharing wi-fi gets implanted in peoples'
    brains as a criminal, borderline terrorist activity, with terms such as
    "theft of tele-communication resources" and similar Orwellian mindf**k terms.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Why not share wi-fi? by RabidMoose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Admit it. You're just bitter that your neighbor finally turned on WPA2, and now you have to go to the library to read Slashdot.

  9. Re:Resonance at other frequencies? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    > What frequencies are not resonant in Aouminum Oxide paint?

    The reporter is just yammering. He hasn't the foggiest idea what the word "resonant" means and knows less than nothing about radio. All we can glean from this is that someone has put out a press release about rf absorbant paint, something that has been around for decades.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. What is so hard about using WPA2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You select WPA2-PSK in your router's config, press "generate key", make a note of the generated key, connect your laptop to the encrypted WLAN, enter the key, done. No beacon disabling, radio frequency shielding, MAC filtering, DHCP disabling or other nonsense necessary. It's like people are trying to test every option but the right one.

  11. Re:Resonance at other frequencies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All we can glean from this is that someone has put out a press release about rf absorbant paint, something that has been around for decades.

    Using information in the article I was able to find the actual science paper. It turns out they are able to tune the resonate frequency of this paint. Very cool. However, the it doesn't go all the way down to 2.4 GHz. That's a pretty long wavelength for this process.