My network topology uses a D-Link DI-624 AirPlus XtremeG wireless router which has the 'Wireless Radio' option set to 'off' most of the time (I occasionally turn it on for guests).
It occured to me that just because the 'Wireless radio' is set to 'off' that it doesn't necessarily mean the transceiver is not emitting electromagnetic signals, albeit useless ones. I thought perhaps disabling this option only stops the router from processing wireless signals.
The question is, does the actual transceiver stop emitting EM-waves when the 'Wireless Radio' set to 'off'?
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
S
schoenfeld1
DI-624 has internal antenna, and an attachable external one (for stronger signals).
I'm 99% sure that switching radio off stops the transceiver altogether, but you never know how things get implemented with these things. OTOH, Antenta off could just stop signal processing but router still transmits some signal, albeit of no relation to network data.
J
Jeff Liebermann
I don't have a DI-624, but my BEFW11S4 stops belching RF when the wireless is set to "disabled". I tested it with two microwave oven leakage detectors. I also watched the RF disappear on my Symbol PPT4340 running as a spectrum analyzer. I can fire up the HP140T(?) spectrum analyzer downstairs but that would require that I clean up my mess and I don't want to do that right now.
What is your concern? That someone might have rewired your transmitter to broadcast secret information of some sorts?
E
Eric
My DLink routers and AP's, when set to "Radio Off", do just that: stop transmitting RF.
They are all 802.11a/g/b, and therefore don't have removable antennas, though. (Dumb FCC reg prohibiting removable antennas for 5 Ghz 802.11a stuff, hopefully to change soon.)
Wouldn't think the "Radio Off" function on the DI-624 would be any different though. DI-624 has a removable antenna, anyway? If you are paranoid, just remove the antenna whenever you don't need it.
Cheers Eric
S
schoenfeld1
It is still unclear if such non-ionising radiation cause dverse health effects or not. Until then, I'd rather use RJ45 in my home.
J
Jeff Liebermann
I'm afraid it will probably never be scientifically clear[1]. You might consider the effects of inverse square law. Double the distance and 1/4th the radiation. That's why cell phones are a problem, because they are very close to the head. That's also why cell towers are not a problem, because they're usually too far away.
If it's an issue, I suggest reconfiguring your system. You already have a DSL or cable modem. Get a cheap ethernet router such as a DI-604. Then configure your DI-614 as an access point and not a router. I can supply instructions if you want to do this. The router section of the DI-624 is essentially disabled and the DI-604 does all the internet stuff. This allows you to turn off the AC power to the DI-624 when not in use. This has the added advantage of allowing you to place the DI-624 in a better RF location such as higher up in the room for better coverage.
[1] One of my friends did some research on the effects of RF exposure at near cell phone frequencies. She repeated some of the more interesting microbiological experiments and found that RF did indeed cause changes in cellular structure and growth patterns. She was about to scribble and submit her findings when someone suggested it best to have her RF source calibrated and tested. The test equipment was working, but the home made coax cable going to the test chamber was shorted inside the connector resulting in no radiated RF at all. In other words, the test results were all worthless and the subtle observed changes were hallucinations. Methinks you'll find a similar lack of a non-RF exposure reference control in many of the published RF exposure tests.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.