[116625] in Cypherpunks
RE: The benefits of e-field shielded bedding
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucky Green)
Mon Aug 16 16:57:08 1999
From: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
To: "John Young" <jya@pipeline.com>, "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Cc: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:38:04 -0700
Message-ID: <NDBBIFGOKODBCKDGJDKLCEGJCDAA.shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <199908152202.SAA14322@smtp3.mindspring.com>
Reply-To: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
A 100dB attenuation figure alone means little. At which frequencies are the
100bB attenuation achieved?
--Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
> [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of John Young
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 1999 14:54
> To: Bill Stewart
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: The benefits of e-field shielded bedding
>
>
>
> Bill Stewart wrote:
>
> >Flectron is quite pleasant stuff, but I'm surprised it's only
> 60dB shielding.
> >Back when I built a TEMPEST room, we had about 110dB.
>
> Bob Thomas, prez of BEMA, is cautious when he describes
> the actual shielding capacity of the tent. He says the published
> capability satisfies unclassified standards, and he's not allowed
> to say what his classified-standards customers require. They buy
> the unit though. Whether they add additional protection is not
> known.
>
> Bob smiles and whipers "our private testing lab told us it protects over
> 100 dB, but nobody in business needs that."
>
> Could be it's BS but I've recommended the product to private
> clients who want exactly that level of protection from governments.
>
> These clients' security people wouldn't let me participate in their
> own testing, not being sufficiently trustworthy, I guess, theirs
> matching Bob's assessment.
>
> What am I, a potted plant? Yep, a bug potter.
>
>
>
>
