Forums

2.4Ghz Oscillator

Started by Cursitor Doom October 20, 2018
Gentlemen,

Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO 
for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I 
just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I 
expressly allow it.
TIA.



-- 
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via 
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other 
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of 
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet 
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
lørdag den 20. oktober 2018 kl. 17.05.46 UTC+2 skrev Cursitor Doom:
> Gentlemen, > > Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO > for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I > just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I > expressly allow it. > TIA.
what's wrong with disabling wifi on the phone, not giving it the password or blocking it on the router?
On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Oct 2018 15:05:42 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <pqfg86$nln$12@dont-email.me>:

>Gentlemen, > >Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO >for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I >just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I >expressly allow it. >TIA.
http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF Feeding some voltage into the base via a resistor changes frequency a bit. Can you read the resistor values?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:41:08 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

> l&oslash;rdag den 20. oktober 2018 kl. 17.05.46 UTC+2 skrev Cursitor Doom: >> Gentlemen, >> >> Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO >> for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I >> just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I >> expressly allow it. >> TIA. > > what's wrong with disabling wifi on the phone, not giving it the > password or blocking it on the router?
In an normal world that would be fine, but this is Google's Android and I don't trust Google one iota. If they had nothing to hide they'd disclose the source code of their various 'contributions' to the O/S which are opaque blocks of machine code which could do *anything* without the user's knowledge. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:31:07 +0200, bilou wrote:

> Put it inside an unpowered microwave oven or outside but close to a > powered one.
Interesting suggestions, there. I like your thinking, but I'd be a bit worried about forgetting it was in the oven in your first idea and the effects on my electricity bill in your second! -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
l&oslash;rdag den 20. oktober 2018 kl. 20.33.07 UTC+2 skrev Cursitor Doom:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:41:08 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > > l&oslash;rdag den 20. oktober 2018 kl. 17.05.46 UTC+2 skrev Cursitor Doom: > >> Gentlemen, > >> > >> Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO > >> for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I > >> just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I > >> expressly allow it. > >> TIA. > > > > what's wrong with disabling wifi on the phone, not giving it the > > password or blocking it on the router? > > In an normal world that would be fine, but this is Google's Android and I > don't trust Google one iota. If they had nothing to hide they'd disclose > the source code of their various 'contributions' to the O/S which are > opaque blocks of machine code which could do *anything* without the > user's knowledge.
just store in in your tinfoil hat then
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:33:07 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> In an normal world that would be fine, but this is Google's Android and I > don't trust Google one iota. ...
And you trust the wireless carriers more?! I can't even trust AT&T to define the word "unlimited" correctly. :)
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:03:35 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

> just store in in your tinfoil hat then
I'm not the only one! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6nEvIEY4s -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:28:45 +0000, 698839253X6D445TD wrote:

> http://panteltje.com/pub/2.4GHz_twisted_oscillator_IMG_3629.GIF > Feeding some voltage into the base via a resistor changes frequency a > bit. Can you read the resistor values?
Now I can see why you thought my soldering was OK, Jan. ;-) Seriously, this looks interesting. I can't read the values and I can't tell what the active device is. You have a circuit for it? -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 19:33:07 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom  wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:41:08 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > > l&oslash;rdag den 20. oktober 2018 kl. 17.05.46 UTC+2 skrev Cursitor Doom: > >> Gentlemen, > >> > >> Has anyone got any ideas for a simple, low-power (milliWatt level) VCO > >> for the WIFI band? Something with a minimal range of just a few feet? I > >> just want to ensure my phone can't access my home network WIFI unless I > >> expressly allow it. > >> TIA. > > > > what's wrong with disabling wifi on the phone, not giving it the > > password or blocking it on the router? > > In an normal world that would be fine, but this is Google's Android and I > don't trust Google one iota. If they had nothing to hide they'd disclose > the source code of their various 'contributions' to the O/S which are > opaque blocks of machine code which could do *anything* without the > user's knowledge.
google listening station, gchq etc NT