On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:38:03 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


You know how an IC gives off heat in relation to how
hard it is working, ("constant current" is a myth) heat is
only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

No, constant current is a fact. The IC draws constant
current in many MP3 players and does not substantially
change it's heat output unless entirely turned off or put to
sleep which is an entirely separate mode of player
operation, not momentary in use like with a CPU.


Switching
devices certainly produce as much "noise" when they
operate as analog devices, more in most cases.

We may have a mic on shielded cable running to a constant
current chip that digitizes. It's spitting out digits when
there's no noise as well as when there is. Yes there may be
noise, but it may not vary as with the old analog, and
certainly not as noisey as something more obvious- a
transmitter signal.

We have
devices that can detect very, very low wattage signals.

That may be useful if you have an object in your hand, but
remember the unknown context of this thread, and that they
can't be constantly false detecting cell phones, beepers,
etc, providing the cell phone isn't recording off-grid which
is a whole 'nuther issue.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:38:03 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


You know how an IC gives off heat in relation to how
hard it is working, ("constant current" is a myth) heat is
only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

No, constant current is a fact. The IC draws constant
current in many MP3 players and does not substantially
change it's heat output unless entirely turned off or put to
sleep which is an entirely separate mode of player
operation, not momentary in use like with a CPU.


No, contsant current isn't a fact. When an IC sends outputs the signals on
the traces are switching and unless the same data is flowing you will see
different currents depending on what data is bieng sent and what was sent
before. Resistance can also change.


---Matthew Hicks

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:49:05 -0500, "Matthew Hicks"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:38:03 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


You know how an IC gives off heat in relation to how
hard it is working, ("constant current" is a myth) heat is
only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

No, constant current is a fact. The IC draws constant
current in many MP3 players and does not substantially
change it's heat output unless entirely turned off or put to
sleep which is an entirely separate mode of player
operation, not momentary in use like with a CPU.


No, contsant current isn't a fact. When an IC sends outputs the signals on
the traces are switching and unless the same data is flowing you will see
different currents depending on what data is bieng sent and what was sent
before. Resistance can also change.


The signals are fairly constant, encoded bits regardless of
whether there's silence or not. My argument is not whether
the mere presences of signals can be deteced, but rather
there is a significant enough difference in signal to detect
with sound input versus silence (in the room).

Claiming you will see different currents based on the data
is easy with the gear open and measurement by wire. Trying
to find whether there is an unknown device present or not is
not quite same situation.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:38:03 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


You know how an IC gives off heat in relation to how
hard it is working, ("constant current" is a myth) heat is
only one part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

No, constant current is a fact. The IC draws constant
current in many MP3 players and does not substantially
change it's heat output unless entirely turned off or put to
sleep which is an entirely separate mode of player
operation, not momentary in use like with a CPU.


Switching
devices certainly produce as much "noise" when they
operate as analog devices, more in most cases.

We may have a mic on shielded cable running to a constant
current chip that digitizes. It's spitting out digits when
there's no noise as well as when there is. Yes there may be
noise, but it may not vary as with the old analog, and
certainly not as noisey as something more obvious- a
transmitter signal.

We have
devices that can detect very, very low wattage signals.

That may be useful if you have an object in your hand, but
remember the unknown context of this thread, and that they
can't be constantly false detecting cell phones, beepers,
etc, providing the cell phone isn't recording off-grid which
is a whole 'nuther issue.


Normally people entering rooms have to pass through
doorways. I would think any "open mike" that responds to
the pattern should be considered a threat.

But look, you can believe what you want, your world can
be a much simpler place, if you don't delve into these issues.

Luck;
Ken

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:28:13 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:

That may be useful if you have an object in your hand, but
remember the unknown context of this thread, and that they
can't be constantly false detecting cell phones, beepers,
etc, providing the cell phone isn't recording off-grid which
is a whole 'nuther issue.


Normally people entering rooms have to pass through
doorways. I would think any "open mike" that responds to
the pattern should be considered a threat.


Sure, but we haven't established that it really will be
detectable based on a pattern of sound. Presuming it will
because some other type of device can be detected isn't
reliable.


But look, you can believe what you want, your world can
be a much simpler place, if you don't delve into these issues.

This is a fairly generic non-applicable comment. We could
as easily consider the opposite, that you can believe what
you want and your world can be a much more paranoid place if
you don't delve into the specifics- but either way we cannot
assume detection without any evidence of same type device
BEING detected in an applicable scenario. While a doorway
detector could be more easily implemented than some, it's
also not going to detect a device turned off at the time.

We'll have to consider the specifics of a digital recorder,
and perhaps even more significantly one that might be chosen
to be harder to detect if it were to be used for a stealthy
purpose.