Forget it. You can't fight terrorism. You can only take away
the anger/frustration that *feeds* it, which takes time and
a lot of wisdom. A roll of duct-tape isn't going to fix anything.
Those are very wise words.
Thats *IS* exactly how it is.
Unfortunatly the big terrorist Bush wants to have war everywhere,
so he can sell weapons, and will make unrest everywhere.
His men are now in Siria, perhaps also in Taiwan, Bush was talking today
of 'world is at war' well, that for sure is what he is directing every
possible energy towards.
So my hopes of this realization being realized so to speak are not great.
Only chance we have, in our lives, is to enjoy this moment given to us,
NOW, there are no guarantees for the future, and the past is gone.
There are however people in this world trying to make people realize
that peace in an inner experience, your own choice so to speak, and
atainable, for example my Guru www.maharaji.org.
So, as long as there is a way out, we are free :-)
JP

(The Captain) wrote in message . com...
Dave Shrader wrote in message news:Xu36c.33004$po.292953@attbi_s52...
John Michael Williams wrote:

SNIP

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

SNIP

There is one other potential source for a spark that you did not
investigate.

A make/break contact in a switch causes sparks when opened. The US
Military specifies special shielded switches for their explosive, gas
vapor, etc., environments.

So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark. Remember the Apollo ground fire. A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.

Actually, anyone who has worked in the offshore oil industry will be
familiar with the concept of intrinsic safety. This requires that no
electronic instrument shall be able to ignite a mixture of air and
inflamable vapour or gas. All handheld radios used on rigs are
intrinsically safe, making them far more expensive than the standard
variety.

I very much doubt that cell phones are buit to intrinsicly safe
standards, and under those circumstances I would certainly not feel
safe near someone yacking while filling.

So, an interesting querstion is; does your phone conform to UL
requirements for intrinsic safety? And if not, why are you using it
in an area where an explosive gas air mixture is possible?

Cap

Actually, a former maritime safety engineer Emailed me
about this. However, he could not locate the law or regulation
which defines "intrinsic safety". If you can find a law
or regulation governing operation of a transmitter around
a gas pump, please post it.

I have no idea how UL testing would pertain to a battery operated
device incapable, itself, of electrocuting anyone. However, the
battery eliminator which I have (but did not use in the
experiment I described) is UL approved.

On the safety issue, the same engineer also told me he was able
to create visible sparks with a 100 W transmitter, holding
the antenna near a piece of metal. However, for the following
reason, I suspect the sparks were because his transmitter was
earth-grounded:

The handheld CB I used had a completely insulated rubber antenna
and of course had no ground connection. I replaced the rubber
antenna with a telescoping metal one. I then keyed the transmit
button (as above) in the dark, while trying to get a spark by
bringing the tip near a 1 m x 1 m aluminum 1/4 in plate (ungrounded).
I could see nothing, although touching the metal caused the CB's
power out bar to indicate a drop in power. The plate should have
been an effective AC ground at ~27 MHz.

So, neither induction into a wire nor electrical direct contact
seems likely to make a visible spark, with a 5 W CB transmitter.

I would only expect a 100 mV or so spark anyway, which would be
hard to see.

So, I'm not convinced that a cell phone could cause a spark, either.


I agree that key closure sparks might be possible internal to
the device, and that neither it nor a cell phone would be likely
to have been designed to suppress a flash from such a source.

However, the issue I have tried to address here is a spark from
the RF, not from generic electrical causes. I don't doubt that
gasoline vapor is inflammable in a generic sense.

John

John Michael Williams

"Costas Vlachos" wrote in message ...

Yes, that is correct - at least that's what was said on the news channels
here in the UK. The Spanish bombs were triggered by mobile phones set on
alarm at 7:39am IIRC - the phones didn't even have to have SIM cards in
them. No signal jamming equipment could have prevented them from going off.

cheers,
Costas
I ma not sure abou that other phone, in a backpack, it rang, and that
is
how they found it.
So it MUST have had a sim card.
When I heard that news, I knew they would get the guys in hours.
One look at that sim, and a look at the telco's logs, and you have the
whole network:-)
It proves these guys are really dumies in that stuff.
Nevertheless very very dangerous.
JP

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Forget it. You can't fight terrorism. You can only take away
the anger/frustration that *feeds* it, which takes time and
a lot of wisdom. A roll of duct-tape isn't going to fix anything.

Those are very wise words.
Thats *IS* exactly how it is.

Actually, we fought nazi terrorism during WWII and won. Seems
to me it would be more appropriate to say: "The fight against
terrorism is a never ending war unless we take away the
anger/frustration that *feeds* it."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil wrote,

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Forget it. You can't fight terrorism. You can only take away
the anger/frustration that *feeds* it, which takes time and
a lot of wisdom. A roll of duct-tape isn't going to fix anything.

Those are very wise words.
Thats *IS* exactly how it is.

Actually, we fought nazi terrorism during WWII and won. Seems
to me it would be more appropriate to say: "The fight against
terrorism is a never ending war unless we take away the
anger/frustration that *feeds* it."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Actually, we used terrorism against the Nazis, the Japanese, and
the Italians in WWII and were very satisfied with the results. We also
paid people like Osama Bin Laden to terrorize the Russians when they
invaded Afghanistan and were again very satisfied with the results.
Moreover, we were quite happy to see Saddam Hussein terrorize the Iranians and
the Kurds when it suited our interests. We were not pleased to have
these dogs turn on us, however, and so we're now engaged in a war on
"terrorism." That's code. What we mean by it is not that we're against
terrorism,
since we are capable of using it ourselves when the need arises,
but against being terrorized.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"David Williams" wrote in message
...
Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. ****
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the *******s and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


hear hear

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Terry Given wrote:
dont they have a nice monument though?

Terry, what the heck are you doing awake at 2am tomorrow?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

questioning my own causality?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:29:15 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
wrote:


Forget it. You can't fight terrorism. You can only take away
the anger/frustration that *feeds* it, which takes time and
a lot of wisdom. A roll of duct-tape isn't going to fix anything.


I agree with you 100%. But its an emotional subject I avoid
assiduously as any argument that says the Arabs and the Muslims have
good reason to feel the way they do will invite very angry flames from
a sector of shoot-em-all-first Americans. For crying out loud, even
Americans who hold this view (Arabs and Muslims have valid grievences)
have been intimidated into silence by their own side. Until the
American right wing come around to dealing with the root causes of
why people are willing to blow themselves up to take out their
enemies, suicide bombings will continue.

The issue is intimately linked with what's going on in Israel. Again
I refuse to get caught in the middle as one will be mauled by both
parties whatever one says. Was it Mercuto who said "Pox on both
Houses" in Romeo and Juliet? Exactly my feelings.

-------------------------------------
I originally used the term CP signal blocking and there were
off-the-shelf equipment openly available for sale some years ago. It
blocks signals to your establishment, eg. inside a restaurant, in
specific frequencies only I believe. I presume the signal blocker
does not block signals outside the premise for that would be clearly
illegal. It does not jam signals with dirty noise that intereferes
with the safe operation of other electronic equipment which is also
clearly illegal.

In any case the suggestion for cellphone signal free areas is just a
suggestion. Of course it wouldn't stop CP triggered bombings for they
will just plant them elsewhere. But at least there is a chance that
the more high value target - a very crowded place in a high profile
establishment - may be spared.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:29:27 -0500, Active8
wrote:



We also don't want the thing detonating from the interrogation with
people around and that's the biggest prob. You have to admit only
one person at a time into the area. That's not too bad. It's common
courtesy to stand back from someone using an ATM so maybe a few feet
will do. Like in a bank line.

I did consider this objection. The interrogation will be done going
into a designated area (eg. sports stadium, train station where other
waiting to go in can wait some distance away. If I recall this
(checks going in) was done for the Superbowl and were not backpacks
and other bags banned? So have them enter a blast cage (to catch the
sharpnel mostly) or something like that for RFID interrogation. The
idea is not unlike the airport metal detector gate check. Once they
are in they are presumed to be safe.

So perhaps have similar "interrogation gates" for people entering a
pedestrians only shopping area, or to Times Square for the New Year
bash.

We are dealing with only one threat - CP triggered bombs. Therefore,
please think small and figure if it is worth doing. I am not trying
to protect the whole world.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:28:56 GMT, KLM wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:29:27 -0500, Active8
wrote:



We also don't want the thing detonating from the interrogation with
people around and that's the biggest prob. You have to admit only
one person at a time into the area. That's not too bad. It's common
courtesy to stand back from someone using an ATM so maybe a few feet
will do. Like in a bank line.

I did consider this objection. The interrogation will be done going
into a designated area (eg. sports stadium, train station where other
waiting to go in can wait some distance away. If I recall this
(checks going in) was done for the Superbowl and were not backpacks
and other bags banned? So have them enter a blast cage (to catch the
sharpnel mostly) or something like that for RFID interrogation. The
idea is not unlike the airport metal detector gate check. Once they
are in they are presumed to be safe.

So perhaps have similar "interrogation gates" for people entering a
pedestrians only shopping area, or to Times Square for the New Year
bash.

Simple. Drop precast, steel reinforced entryways in the street.

We are dealing with only one threat - CP triggered bombs. Therefore,
please think small and figure if it is worth doing. I am not trying
to protect the whole world.


--
Best Regards,
Mike