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

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446382 > unrolled thread

Blocking RF from intentional radiators

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 00:40 -0700
    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 00:56 -0800
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 02:19 -0700
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:22 -0800
    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 11:57 +0000
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-06 06:51 -0600
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 06:52 -0700
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 07:55 -0700
          Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:38 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-02-06 14:18 -0600
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 14:39 -0700
                Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-02-06 17:10 -0600
                  Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:06 -0700
                    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-07 04:12 +0000
                Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-07 04:05 +0000
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:56 -0700
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:18 -0700
          Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:41 -0800
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:32 -0800
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 06:39 -0800
    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 08:28 -0800
    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-06 09:23 -0800
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 09:30 -0800
      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 11:52 -0700
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-06 11:31 -0800
          Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:49 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-02-06 14:07 -0600
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 12:09 -0800
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 13:37 -0700
                Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:35 -0800
                  Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:59 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-06 17:56 -0800
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 12:03 -0800
          Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 13:31 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 13:29 -0800
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 13:32 -0800
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:01 -0700
                Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 15:07 -0700
                  Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:13 -0700
                    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-06 14:28 -0800
                      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:31 -0700
                    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 15:59 -0700
                      Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:08 -0700
                        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 16:36 -0800
                    Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 10:26 +1100
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:05 -0800
          Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 14:22 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-02-06 13:39 -0800
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:12 -0700
            Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:43 -0800
              Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:29 -0800
        Re: Blocking RF from intentional radiators Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-07 04:19 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#446487

On 2/6/2017 3:28 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den mandag den 6. februar 2017 kl. 23.13.20 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:
>> On 2/6/2017 3:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Cranky!  Cranky!  Will get you nada!
>>
>> Being concise and polite wasn't getting me anything, either!  :>
>
> I doubt anyone ever described you as concise ;)
>
> take it how ever you want but every question you ask seems end the same way,
> you writing walls of text on why every solution proposed is useless
> because it isn't generic enough to cover all previous,current, and future
> use cases for all possible manufacturers of possibly yet to be invented
> devices

Then gladly add me to your kill file -- soas not to be bothered by
my "unproductive" posts!

[Did it ever occur to you that I only ask the questions that *I*
find hard to answer?  :>  ]

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

#446493

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:13:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/6/2017 3:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Cranky!  Cranky!  Will get you nada!
>
>Being concise and polite wasn't getting me anything, either!  :>

Concise?  I'd call it obfuscating ;-)
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

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

#446519

On 2/6/2017 3:59 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:13:17 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2017 3:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> Cranky!  Cranky!  Will get you nada!
>>
>> Being concise and polite wasn't getting me anything, either!  :>
>
> Concise?  I'd call it obfuscating ;-)

My original post had three short sentences.  Had I opted to
use "garage door opener" in place of GDO, it clearly states
the problem I was addressing.

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

#446926

>My original post had three short sentences.  Had I opted to 
>use "garage door opener" in place of GDO, it clearly states 
>the problem I was addressing. 

Here I was thinking "grid dip oscillator". ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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

#446500

On 07/02/17 09:13, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 3:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Cranky!  Cranky!  Will get you nada!
>
> Being concise and polite wasn't getting me anything, either!  :>

You need to be concrete as well as concise. Hints for next time:

* don't use an acronym without checking that it has only one expansion.

* don't use the indefinite article (like "a GDO"); make it explicit
by saying "any GDO" or "my client's Model X GDO".

* don't refer as you did to "the RF link" when you know that has both
a receiving and a transmitting end; state which end you want to inhibit.

Those three things would not have made your original message any more
than the three lines you used, but would have saved a lot of discussion.

In short, ask *concrete* questions, not general ones. Limit the free
variables as far as possible. And *don't* just use that as a way to
launch into a discussion of apparently unlimited generality, by adding
more free variables. It's *this* factor which makes your threads
frustrating. We don't know what question you're trying to answer,
and as soon as you get a valid answer, you generalize the question by
adding another free variable, to make the answer wrong or invalid.
It's a *constantly* repeating pattern.

And you complain that *we're* the bleaters who cause this problem.
Sheesh... Try to be a little bit more reflective... You can do it,
you're a smart guy. Count your free variables every time you launch
a thread.

Clifford Heath.

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

#446464

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

> I want Joe Average User to be able to cripple the "wireless" activation/control
> of his opener -- without having to disassemble it *or* consult an exhaustive
> compilation of "if you have model X, do this" rules.
> 
> Once crippled -- and until "restored" -- neither his remote nor any OTHER
> remote should be able to affect the operation of the opener.

Oh, that's easy.  Unplug it.

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

#446467

On 2/6/2017 2:05 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
>
>> I want Joe Average User to be able to cripple the "wireless" activation/control
>> of his opener -- without having to disassemble it *or* consult an exhaustive
>> compilation of "if you have model X, do this" rules.
>>
>> Once crippled -- and until "restored" -- neither his remote nor any OTHER
>> remote should be able to affect the operation of the opener.
>
> Oh, that's easy.  Unplug it.

Then the opener itself is disabled, not JUST the wireless aspect of its
operation!  :>

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

#446471

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
...
> 
> Then the opener itself is disabled, not JUST the wireless aspect of its
> operation!  :>

All the garage door openers I have owned have had a "Security" setting on the manual switch (hardwired to the opener) that disables RF operation while still allowing the manual operation.

kevin

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

#446481

On 2/6/2017 2:39 PM, kevin93 wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote: ...
>>
>> Then the opener itself is disabled, not JUST the wireless aspect of its
>> operation!  :>
>
> All the garage door openers I have owned have had a "Security" setting on
> the manual switch (hardwired to the opener) that disables RF operation while
> still allowing the manual operation.

That appears to be what Jim has, as well.  I.e., the manufacturer has decided
that there is some value to be able to disable the wireless access.  (or,
just figured it was an option/feature they could charge for!)

Ours doesn't -- just a hook for the "optical interrupter" (which aborts
a CLOSE operation in progress, among other things)

Our cordless phone doesn't have any mechanism to disable the "cordless" aspect
(utilizing just the "base station" capability).  Actually, that's true of ALL
the cordless phones we've had -- including the pricey "industrial" units!
[I literally unplug the base unit from the PSTN when I want to disable it]

I can only disable the wireless capability in my "routers" through the
web-based management console -- and, all are different.

We can disable the wireless entry feature on the car -- but only by
knowing how to access the "settings" and having some knowledge of the
terse, cryptic descriptions of each "setting".

Do RC planes/cars/boats have a switch that allows the radio control
to be disabled (or, do you just kill "power")?

Etc.

I.e., the wireless aspect of many devices seems to be considered so
fundamental that including a means of disabling it appears to be an
afterthought, in many cases!

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

#446490

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 2:05 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> >
> >> I want Joe Average User to be able to cripple the "wireless" activation/control
> >> of his opener 

> > Oh, that's easy.  Unplug it.
> 
> Then the opener itself is disabled, not JUST the wireless aspect of its
> operation!  :>

If you have a grid dip oscilator, set it to the target frequency, and leave it
near the receiver.  Until you unplug the GDO, the GDO won't receive its
modulated RF trigger input, because the input will be overloaded.

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

#446524

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 2:43:06 PM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> > On 2/6/2017 2:05 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> > >
> > >> I want Joe Average User to be able to cripple the "wireless" activation/control
> > >> of his opener 
> 
> > > Oh, that's easy.  Unplug it.
> > 
> > Then the opener itself is disabled, not JUST the wireless aspect of its
> > operation!  :>
> 
> If you have a grid dip oscilator, set it to the target frequency, and leave it
> near the receiver.  Until you unplug the GDO, the GDO won't receive its
> modulated RF trigger input, because the input will be overloaded.

  Best response so far...


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#446599

On 2017-02-06, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

> I want Joe Average User to be able to cripple the "wireless" activation/control
> of his opener -- without having to disassemble it *or* consult an exhaustive
> compilation of "if you have model X, do this" rules.

Easy. have Joe average user consult an expert.

If you want a solution you can put in a blister pack and retail for $19.95
you should have said so long ago.

-- 
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web