Timeline for Does a simple bug detector detect electric field or magnetic field?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2016 at 14:09 | vote | accept | xchcui | ||
| Dec 16, 2016 at 14:10 | |||||
| Dec 16, 2016 at 10:31 | comment | added | xchcui | But my main question was related to the kind of the fields,which that detector detects?magnetec field?electric field? or both?in order to use it for other purpose.(not for detecting bugs).I got an answer(though it is very educating)that focused more on the bug detector efficiency,than to what i really try to understand.May someone refer to my last comment?there is my main question. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 5:27 | comment | added | Richard Crowley | Dave Jones just posted a "teardown" video of a professional "Countersuvelience Monitor" used by the CIA/NSA, etc. It probably isn't all that different from the little hand-held gadget you show in your photo. youtu.be/nWG_neR0CME | |
| Dec 15, 2016 at 19:17 | comment | added | xchcui | When you says"...specifically RF fields",do you mean that it detecting the power(w/m2) of the magnetic wave power+the electric wave power together?while,with standard EMF detector(that has several measuring option),it detects only electric field when we use the v/m unit,it detect only magnetic field when we use the gauss unit and it detects(as in my case)the power of both field when we use the w/m2 unit?BTW,my detector makes sound only when very close to the transmitter(5cm),so it is not at the far field. | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 20:06 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | well, anything that's based on knowing what the signal behaves like is based on knowledge of how the transmitter works; but it's all a bit of a wild assumption that someone who'd actively wanted to hide in the spectrum wouldn't do something extremely crazy – like doing a q-tone FSK at hopping center frequencies with both the frequencies and q and the symbol timing being a result of secret random generators that only the intended audience knows. | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | ah, ok sorry, you were explicitly referring to the feedback-catching-method (new word creation, yay!) | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 20:03 | comment | added | Samuel | @MarcusMüller But can you then demodulate, decode, and playback over a speaker in real time? I don't see how else you'll get feedback. | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 20:01 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @Samuel depends on how experienced you are at signal classification. I can typically spot GSM, UMTS and WiFi in a periodogramm that's wide enough, but that's a matter of experience. FSK-style modulations are typically harder to tell from PSK on a low resolution. FM transmitters are easy to spot for the "round" and non-constant spectral position; | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 17:50 | comment | added | Samuel | Interesting feedback method. I assume that's only going to work for backpage-of-Popular-Science-esque FM Bugs. Yeah? | |
| Dec 14, 2016 at 16:48 | history | answered | Richard Crowley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |