Metalized paint

Page 2 of 2  
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:34:09 -0600, Vic Smith

Or "grass cloth" - but it doesn't come off so easy.
I've seen "oil cloth" used as wall covering too, years ago. Come to think of it I haven't even seen oil cloth on the market for years - used to be common "table cloth" material.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2015 3:34 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

I haven't played with wallpaper in years. When I was younger, you went to the "wallpaper store". Rolls of wallpaper piled up in much the same way that bolts of fabric are organized in a fabric store. You looked at *the* product that you would be taking home -- not a sample in a book/catalog.
I remember removing the old with a sponge down followed by "scraping" behind it with a very wide scraper -- like a wide putty knife. The adhesive on the wetted back was essentially the same as the "new" adhesive that the replacement paper used (some sort of wheat paste; smelled funny).
But, I can't recall what it felt like. "Paper" is a misnomer...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:29:13 -0700, Don Y

This stuff...
http://emfsafetystore.com/#paints
Looks to be about $300+ a gallon!!! Needs to be grounded.
Will you also paint the ceiling and put something over all the windows?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:26:01 PM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:

Interesting stuff.
I noticed that the instruction sheet doesn't mention anything about cleanup of the tools. They says that the dried up product can be disposed of with household waste. They also say not to dispose of the product in the "sink, water or ground".
Are you expected to throw away all brushes, rollers and rags after use? Since they also say to use the "best" rollers, etc. this project keeps getting more and more expensive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2015 6:24 PM, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yes, it's expensive. The market is small, there are few "players" and the folks who want/need it *need* it -- which tends to make it a seller's market.
But, it's a relatively minor cost. Let's assume I'd need *100* gallons (not!) for the job -- $30K of paint. OTOH, if it saves me the time and expense of developing an alternative, "non RF" technology, I'll have "saved" the expense of that effort, the time required for it *and* the "lost opportunities" that the effort incurred: $250K? $500K $1M??
You, no doubt, own a car. Why? Surely you can WALK to any place that your car can transport you! How many pairs of shoes can you buy for the $20/30/40/50+K you'll spend on the vehicle? Plus the gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. Isn't that car an EXTRAVAGANCE? Why not hail a cab if you don't feel like walking?
Ah, but *having* it affords you other opportunities that you might not have, without it! E.g., you can now work farther from home -- giving you greater choice in where you live (or work)! You can shop at places other than those within walking distance -- and can purchase more than two armfuls of goods! Etc.
Do you use an expensive phone (plus phone plan) instead of snail mail? Aren't you just paying a lot of money to save some *time*?
Do you go out for meals instead of making them yourself? You *know* you aren't saving any *time* -- as it takes "them" just as long to prepare the food as it would "you" and you still have to transport yourself to/fro as well as *wait* to be waited on, served, pay, etc.
[I always chuckle when I see someone order a $10 bowl of spaghetti!]
Developing a product/device brings these sorts of time/cost tradeoffs to the forefront. Save money? Or, save time??

We already have window treatments that could be adapted. And, losses through unshielded openings (windows, doors) are much less than those through omnidirectional radiation. I.e., a transmitter has to be aligned with the opening and the receiver -- as well as having sufficient power to bridge the distance between.
Ceiling is a low risk as there's nothing looking down on us (within a few sight-miles). If it became an issue, laying wire mesh *on* the roof would be an effective and more economical solution -- with practically zero cosmetic implications (you can't *see* the roof unless you're flying overhead).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:14:41 -0700, Don Y

Are you worried bout your neighbors spying or are you worried someo9ne it literally going to come into your neighborhood and specifically target you to spy on? Is there something specific you fear someone will find out or is this a generalized fear of being spied on?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/1/2016 9:06 PM, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm the only person with <fill-in-the-blank> there is very little chance of someone being able to *use* data that they snoop -- there are far too many impediments to them even KNOWING what the data contains, how it is encoded, encrypted, etc.
In a sense, "security by obscurity" (if you don't know that the building across the street from you is a gold depository, then you're not going to think of how to break into it! :> )
OTOH, if you (me) are developing a technology that others will eventually use -- i.e., so it is no longer "obscure" -- you don't want to develop that technology with an inherent weakness that others could exploit!
"Gee, it's a great idea but it has these HUGE weaknesses..."
So, I need to make sure I have a COMPLETE solution -- even if it isnt the most inexpensive or technologically advanced. I can't say "this is the world's safest automobile!" if I then have to add, /sotto voce/, "as long as there are NO OTHER DRIVERS on the road"
Relying on wireless comms in any way opens the door for: - "eavesdropping" (snooping on the data) - counterfeiting (forging data or commands) - denial of service (jam the airwaves to prevent things from working)
The way to minimize these problems is to shield the comms; just the equivalent of turning them into "wired" comms (where the "insulator" function is performed by the shielding)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good cage will reject RF. I've used cell phones in elevators. I can ring my cell phone in my microwave. A microwave is only optimized at the magnetron frequency.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2015 2:11 AM, gregz wrote:

Correct. You just have to control size of openings wrt the frequency you're trying to block. As I have control over *my* (desired) RF, I can tune the shield to fit *it's* needs, not try to block *all* RF.
However, as I can't just pick *any* frequencies ("intentional radiator"), I can't be sure my shielding won't also block some things that I might otherwise *want* to permeate the shield -- now or at some future date (when who knows what the frequency allocations might be!). So, I have to be prepared to live without "other needs"; and, be prepared to undo what I've done when/if the house is sold (I suspect a future homeowner would not consider the shielding to be an ASSET!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So you'll be creating in essence a live-in Faraday cage. Wow!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After serious thinking Don Y wrote :

Aluminum foil hats come to mind. [Whut is that shinny thing streaking across the sky???]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.