Our microwave used to knock out the wireless signal in the old kitchen. When we moved the kitchen it went much further away from the router and now has no effect when in use. I wouldn't worry about the microwave cooking you but I'm not a microwave expert.
- Thread starter Feltwell
- Start date
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
The inverse-square law does work in our favour, so increasing the distance between the wifi bits and the microwave oven will certainly be beneficial. And, with a leaky microwave oven, vacating the room whilst cooking might be personally beneficial as well.
The shielding in a microwave is a faraday cage. Surely unless you've dropped it, knocked a hole in it or in some way overridden the lock that prevents the door being closed you're pretty safe?
The font of all inaccurate knowledge shows
"A microwave oven works by passing non-ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 122 millimetres (4.80 in)—through the food. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
"Spectrum assignments and operational limitations do not operate consistently worldwide. Most of Europe allows for an additional 2 channels beyond those permitted in the U.S. for the 2.4 GHz band. (1–13 vs. 1–11); Japan has one more on top of that (1–14). Europe, as of 2007[update], was essentially homogeneous in this respect. A very confusing aspect is the fact that a Wi-Fi signal actually occupies five channels in the 2.4 GHz band resulting in only three non-overlapped channels in the U.S.: 1, 6, 11, and three or four in Europe: 1, 5, 9, 13. Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in the EU is limited to 20 dBm (100 mW)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi
I presume that the operating frequencies are very close together and as data transmission can be touchy they interfere at very low levels - i.e. not enough to cook you in either case.
If you're using 'N' protocol wireless networks then I believe the error correction across both channels in uses so should be better than b or g as used in my network.
The font of all inaccurate knowledge shows
"A microwave oven works by passing non-ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 122 millimetres (4.80 in)—through the food. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
"Spectrum assignments and operational limitations do not operate consistently worldwide. Most of Europe allows for an additional 2 channels beyond those permitted in the U.S. for the 2.4 GHz band. (1–13 vs. 1–11); Japan has one more on top of that (1–14). Europe, as of 2007[update], was essentially homogeneous in this respect. A very confusing aspect is the fact that a Wi-Fi signal actually occupies five channels in the 2.4 GHz band resulting in only three non-overlapped channels in the U.S.: 1, 6, 11, and three or four in Europe: 1, 5, 9, 13. Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in the EU is limited to 20 dBm (100 mW)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi
I presume that the operating frequencies are very close together and as data transmission can be touchy they interfere at very low levels - i.e. not enough to cook you in either case.
If you're using 'N' protocol wireless networks then I believe the error correction across both channels in uses so should be better than b or g as used in my network.
worms
Member
- Messages
- 1,992
- Location
- ultima Thule
I should perhaps have mentioned that our wi-fi router sits on top of the microwave, so the potential for interference is at is absolute maximum.Flyfisher said:
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
:lol:
Yes, I'd say that would qualify as a 'material fact'.
Yes, I'd say that would qualify as a 'material fact'.
worms
Member
- Messages
- 1,992
- Location
- ultima Thule
Shhh! My son (raised on Brainiac etc) might consider that a challenge!AMc said:
LadyArowana
Member
- Messages
- 3,687
.