Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161147 > unrolled thread

enigma

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 13:46 +0000
    Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-17 14:07 +0000
      Re: enigma philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-03-17 10:00 -0500
      Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 15:29 +0000
      Re: enigma Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-17 22:23 +0000
        Re: enigma Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-17 21:12 -0500
        Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:39 +0000
          Re: enigma scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 13:15 +0000
            Re: enigma Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-18 13:30 +0000
              Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-18 15:39 +0000
          Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 08:26 -0600
            Re: enigma Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-18 18:26 +0000
            Re: enigma "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-18 19:00 -0400
              Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:19 -0700
                Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:27 -0700
              Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
                Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:04 -0500
                  Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 21:28 -0600
              Re: enigma hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-19 11:14 -0700
                Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-20 09:02 +0000
          Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
            Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:06 -0500
              Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-19 11:01 +0000
                Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:06 -0400
                  Re: enigma Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-19 16:17 +0100
                  Re: enigma greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:45 +0000
                    Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:00 -0400
                    Re: enigma sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-03-19 15:48 -0400
                Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-19 15:10 +0000
                Re: enigma Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-19 12:31 -0500
              Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 07:28 -0700
              Re: enigma cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-03-19 18:05 +0000
                Re: enigma Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-21 13:56 -0500
                  Re: enigma Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:47 +0000
    Re: enigma "capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek>" <peter.capek@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:16 -0700
      Re: enigma Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
        Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-21 12:07 -0500
          Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:51 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#161213

<mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-03-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>> t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>> realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>> codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>> thing, Good book.
>>> 
>>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>>> about the work.
>> 
>> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and 
>> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>> 
>> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one 
>> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one 
>> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a 
>> 'bombe'.
>> 
>> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of 
>> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being 
>> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>> 
>> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me", 
>                                               ^^^^ :) Babbage?   
> 
>> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
>> 
>> "I worked here, too", he said.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> 
> 

It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
up their conversation with a parabolic mike.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161218

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-03-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>>> realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>>> codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>>> thing, Good book.
>>>> 
>>>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>>>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>>>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>>>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>>>> about the work.
>>> 
>>> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and 
>>> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>>> 
>>> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one 
>>> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one 
>>> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a 
>>> 'bombe'.
>>> 
>>> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of 
>>> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being 
>>> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>>> 
>>> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me", 
>>                                               ^^^^ :) Babbage?   
>> 
>>> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
>>> 
>>> "I worked here, too", he said.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>> 
>> 
>
>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.

Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.

Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161222

On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
>
> Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
> mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
> hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.

I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
th window, and the ones using the equipment.
Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
(triple glazed?)

>
> Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
> plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161227

In article <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>
> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
> >>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
> >
> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
> 
> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
> th window, and the ones using the equipment.
> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)

How is a low powered IR laser "bad" for anyone?  Are you one of these 
people who hears the word "radiation" and immediately assumes neutron 
bombardment?

And there isn't any "treatment" that prevents a window from vibrating.  
If you can stand outside the window and hear the conversation then it 
can be picked up by measuring the vibration of the window.

Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however 
they produce a visible beam.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161230

In article <MPG.315726d52e6ba22e98a035@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
>> 
>> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>
>> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>> >>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
>> >
>> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
>> 
>> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
>> th window, and the ones using the equipment.
>> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
>> (triple glazed?)
>
>How is a low powered IR laser "bad" for anyone?  Are you one of these 
>people who hears the word "radiation" and immediately assumes neutron 
>bombardment?
>
>And there isn't any "treatment" that prevents a window from vibrating.  
>If you can stand outside the window and hear the conversation then it 
>can be picked up by measuring the vibration of the window.

Even the 4-way vacuum-filled windows used to really block sound are
subseptible to this method, you just need to get a reflection of the
inner surface. Which you can do if you can reflect at an internal reflection
angle. Yes, this needs a receiver at a wide separation from the transmitter, 
but it has been done a lot of times, even in hostile territory.

You also have a lot of frequencies to work with.

>Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however 
>they produce a visible beam.

Likewise, you can use deep IR, which is not seen on a standard "IR camera".
Or you can use some UW frequencies, but glass tends to be opaque to a
lot of these.

UW can be sensed if you are directly in the beam though. You will feel
irriration in the eyes if you look at it.

Low-powered lasers are totally harmless if you just don't look directly
into the beam,

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161233

On 2016-03-19, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
>> 
>> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>
>> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>> >>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
>> >
>> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
>> 
>> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
>> th window, and the ones using the equipment.
>> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
>> (triple glazed?)
>


> How is a low powered IR laser "bad" for anyone?  Are you one of these 
> people who hears the word "radiation" and immediately assumes neutron 
> bombardment?

Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?

>
> And there isn't any "treatment" that prevents a window from vibrating.  
> If you can stand outside the window and hear the conversation then it 
> can be picked up by measuring the vibration of the window.

Triple glazed?

>
> Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however 
> they produce a visible beam.
>  


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161235

In article <slrnner42l.1vs.mausg@dmaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-03-19, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> >> 
> >> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> >> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> >> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>
> >> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
> >> >>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
> >> >
> >> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
> >> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
> >> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
> >> 
> >> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
> >> th window, and the ones using the equipment.
> >> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> >> (triple glazed?)
> >
> 
> 
> > How is a low powered IR laser "bad" for anyone?  Are you one of these 
> > people who hears the word "radiation" and immediately assumes neutron 
> > bombardment?
> 
> Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?

Who said anything about x-rays?

> > And there isn't any "treatment" that prevents a window from vibrating.  
> > If you can stand outside the window and hear the conversation then it 
> > can be picked up by measuring the vibration of the window.
> 
> Triple glazed?

Google it, you can buy them at Home Depot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161240

In article <slrnner42l.1vs.mausg@dmaus.org>, greymaus  <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

>Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?

i recall a semi serious proposal for xray lasers pumped by nuclear explosions,
the photons arrive slightly before the explosion residue
so those lasers would definitely be dangerous to health

these days with free electron lasers i think they are using less drastic
measures, but hi energy radiation is not a nice thing to shine at a window 

sidd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161231

On 19 Mar 2016 11:01:01 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>
> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today
> >>pick up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
> >
> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
> 
> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
> th window, and the ones using the equipment.

	I don't see why, low power infrared (you can use visible or UV but
it's more likely to be noticed) light is harmless.

> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)

	Standard dodge AIUI is to attach a noise generator to the window,
probably the kind of noise that resembles thousands of conversations
overlayed.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161232

On 3/19/2016 6:01 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>>> up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
>>
>> Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>> mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>> hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
>
> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
> th window, and the ones using the equipment.

You might be thinking of the microwave radiation used to power the 
"Great Seal" type bugs. I think that required a fairly powerful 
microwave beam. Though it seems like it would be safe for the spy so 
long as he kept away from the front of the antenna/waveguide and the 
equipment was well designed for safety (not a given in the USSR). 
OTOH, actually looking out the window at where the laser is might be 
dangerous to your eyesight (and looking at the reflected laser from 
the spy's viewpoint could do the same).

> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)

That would probably help reduce the vibration transmitted to the 
outside window. Various window films on the outside glass might either 
absorb the laser or reflect it, either of which could make it less 
effective.

>
>>
>> Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
>> plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161229

JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2016-03-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>>>> realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>>>> codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>>>> thing, Good book.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>>>>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>>>>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>>>>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>>>>> about the work.
>>>> 
>>>> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and 
>>>> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>>>> 
>>>> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one 
>>>> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one 
>>>> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a 
>>>> 'bombe'.
>>>> 
>>>> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of 
>>>> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being 
>>>> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>>>> 
>>>> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me", 
>>> ^^^^ :) Babbage?   
>>> 
>>>> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
>>>> 
>>>> "I worked here, too", he said.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>> up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
> 
> Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
> mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
> hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
> 
> Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
> plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.
> 

That was just one if many.  I believe the building was so full of bugs it
had to be town down and rebuilt (with American labor).

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161236

In article <5d9pebdhvhf05dj0r4b3pkvvmmh7mhgqk4@4ax.com>,
JimP.  <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.

Of course, these days no fancy laser equiment may be necessary - just a
clear line of sight:

[quote src="http://news.mit.edu/2014/alrogithm-recovers-speech-from-vibrations-0804"]

Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
 from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.

[/quote]

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8

// Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161289

Christian Brunschen wrote:

> In article <5d9pebdhvhf05dj0r4b3pkvvmmh7mhgqk4@4ax.com>,
> JimP.  <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>>Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>>mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>>hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
> 
> Of course, these days no fancy laser equiment may be necessary - just a
> clear line of sight:
> 
> [quote
> [src="http://news.mit.edu/2014/alrogithm-recovers-speech-from-
vibrations-0804"]
> 
> Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
> can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
> depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
> intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
>  from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
That link doesn't work.  But, typical video is 60 frames/second, seems hard 
to understand how they can get the upper voice frequencies back with only 60 
images/second.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161293

Jon Elson wrote:

> Christian Brunschen wrote:
>
>> Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
>> can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
>> depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
>> intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
>>   from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
>
> typical video is 60 frames/second, seems hard
> to understand how they can get the upper voice frequencies back with only 60
> images/second.

If the crisp-bag was more or less full frame, then they could take each 
line separately and get 1080x60 = 64k samples/sec ...

Nothing actually said they get the upper frequencies anyway, just that 
it was intelligible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161266

A couple of posts here have mentioned the Great Seal of the United States which was a gift to the Ambassador from the children of the Soviet Union, and which hung in the embassy for about 7 years before it was discovered that it embodied a resonant cavity listening device which could be monitor from afar with microwaves.   It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also invented the musical instrument that bears his name, and is also credit for inventing interlacing for video signals.  See his Wikipedia article for a little more information.

           Peter Capek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161269

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:16:39 AM UTC-6, capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek> wrote:
> It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also 
> invented the musical instrument that bears his name

Checking the Wikipedia article, I found the most important fact concerning this: 
he was under duress in a Soviet labor camp at the time he was involved in this 
evil scheme.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161281

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:16:39 AM UTC-6, capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek> wrote:
>> It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also 
>> invented the musical instrument that bears his name
>
>Checking the Wikipedia article, I found the most important fact concerning this: 
>he was under duress in a Soviet labor camp at the time he was involved in this 
>evil scheme.
>
>John Savard

Most every documentary I've read or watched about Theremin mentions
this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161299

JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:16:39 AM UTC-6, capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek> wrote:
>>> It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also 
>>> invented the musical instrument that bears his name
>> 
>> Checking the Wikipedia article, I found the most important fact concerning this: 
>> he was under duress in a Soviet labor camp at the time he was involved in this 
>> evil scheme.
>> 
>> John Savard
> 
> Most every documentary I've read or watched about Theremin mentions
> this.
> 

The google doodle a few days ago was a theremin.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web