CW wrote:

Unlike some in industry, we just look at the potential problems. To often,
things like this get pushed through due to the drive of money rather than
common sense. Often this results in the "acceptable loses" attitude when it
comes to the safety of the public.

Gotta disagree here CW

The reason that this sort of thing is going on is that they are trying
to lower those losses. The zapper may or may not be a practical device
(I tend to think of it as quite impractical for most of the reasons
already outlined) but it was brought about with the intention of
*saving* lives. "Acceptable losses" hover very near zero, perp or
innocent bystander. Otherwise a chase could be terminated very, very
quickly.

- Mike -

I was riding on the TPK in the sedate 1953 six-banger family Pontiac,
didn't see trooper coming, then *Whooosh!*, his pressure wave almost
blew us out of the lane.

w3rv


Suf's up:-)!

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:23:50 -0700, "Ed Price"
wrote:


"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
. com...

SNIP


But . . but . . so the cop punches the button, turns loose a monster
burst of RF and the perp's engine sputters out. What prevents the RF
from also shutting down the engine in the Looney Van? The cops will be
issued Looney Vans equipped with RF-proof 1956 Stromberg carburetors
or what?? That would thrill the EPA and the EU envirofreaks no end . .


Maybe you haven't noticed it, but government regularly exempts itself from
the picky regulations that they impose on the general populace.

It's not the carb that's the RF sensitive element, it's the Engine Control
Computer which the zappers attempt to toast. That means that the ideal
immune vehicle would be about pre-1980, with a Kettering ignition system.
However, the 70's cars were notorious for trying to reduce exhaust emissions
with pneumatics, thermal delays, and other non-electronic systems. Those
systems created balky, stall-prone engines, so we need to move the date back
to about 1970.


I guess the next step will be to require big yellow stickers
on the sun visors warning owners with pacemakers to stop immediately
if redlighted so as not to have the pacemaker smoked.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:23:34 -0700, "CW" no adddress@spam free.com
wrote:

I can see it know. Cops are chasing some sleaze. He's going at great speed
in traffic, causing a danger to everyone. Cops let loose with their RF gun
disabling sleaze's car, their own and fifteen others on the road. One of the
innocents affected is a 98 pound woman that can't control her car without
the power steering. She looses control causing a multicar pileup. Yep,
sounds safer to me.


You have electronic power steering? When did they give up on
the vacuum/hydraulic systems?

On 18 Jul 2004 05:19:30 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

Jim Pennino wrote,

CW no adddress@spam free.com wrote:
I can see it know. Cops are chasing some sleaze. He's going at great speed
in traffic, causing a danger to everyone. Cops let loose with their RF gun
disabling sleaze's car, their own and fifteen others on the road. One of
the
innocents affected is a 98 pound woman that can't control her car without
the power steering. She looses control causing a multicar pileup. Yep,
sounds safer to me.

Not to mention the guy with the pacemaker that causes yet another pileup
while clutching his chest.


Hey, wait a minute -- we forgot to mention Parkinson's
patients with DBS electrodes in their brains and all the associated
electronics. :-)

Before I explain this, I'm going to give you a chance to think about what
you just said. Becoming any clearer?

wrote in message
...

You have electronic power steering? When did they give up on
the vacuum/hydraulic systems?

Over the years I've seen quite a bit of this kind of thing. In my
experience, it's not the brain child of a "mad scientist" at all, but a
clever entrepreneur. He makes the idea sound plausible enough to get
technically naive investors (which can easily include the government) to
chip in, makes himself president and CEO of a company, and lives the
good life as long as he can before the investors finally realize there
won't be buckets of money at the end of the road and pull the plug.
Although not required, quite a few of the ones I've known have a Ph.D.,
which impresses the investors. Some leave a trail of crashed companies
behind them but manage to do it over and over, conning a new set of
marks each time.

It doesn't take a very careful look at some of the "miracle" antenna
proponents to identify a number of these operations at work right now.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:

Nah, just practical and realistic.

This is just another "mad scientist" project. Technologically
feasible... well, just maybe... but totally devoid of common sense.

The amazing thing is how easily such projects find powerful backers at
corporate and even governmental level [insert cross-references to the
Dotcom Boom and BPL here].

Well, be that as it may (and granted, didnt keep vehicle from
resttarting), as two way tech for railroad, had complaint , and from
MECHANICS about their TRUCK! Said when talked on radio, it would come
to screeching halt, if they used their two way radio (160 mhz)! would
key radio in front of the shop- no problem, thought they NUTS! Said,
"Lets take for a test drive" And sure as all get out, ENGINE STALLED!
what was interesting was that no problem when first installed the radio
(*&$%*() truck then was around 20 years old, and that about 15 years
ago)! Turns out that they replaced the old POINTS- Coil, Distributor
with an Electronic ignition kit! Refitted it to the original, and no
further probs (no info on what kind of caps to get rid of the rf for the
original from the manufacturer !) -- But Roy is right-- after all,
Couple fellow's (Gates and Allen) are college DROPOUTS, and they worth
more bux than lotsa Ph D. s - combined! Only one PERSONALLY would trust
(Ph D ) is a fellow named T.J.Rodgers - founder of Cypress
Semiconductors! Most of the the others are exactly what Roy describes
!! Jim NN7K

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Over the years I've seen quite a bit of this kind of thing. In my
experience, it's not the brain child of a "mad scientist" at all, but a
clever entrepreneur. He makes the idea sound plausible enough to get
technically naive investors (which can easily include the government) to
chip in, makes himself president and CEO of a company, and lives the
good life as long as he can before the investors finally realize there
won't be buckets of money at the end of the road and pull the plug.
Although not required, quite a few of the ones I've known have a Ph.D.,
which impresses the investors. Some leave a trail of crashed companies
behind them but manage to do it over and over, conning a new set of
marks each time.

It doesn't take a very careful look at some of the "miracle" antenna
proponents to identify a number of these operations at work right now.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(Fractenna) wrote in message ...
I was riding on the TPK in the sedate 1953 six-banger family Pontiac,
didn't see trooper coming, then *Whooosh!*, his pressure wave almost
blew us out of the lane.

w3rv


Suf's up:-)!

Yeah, 'cept those suckers were not "Little Deuce Coupe" surfers . .

w3rv

"Ed Price" wrote
However, the 70's cars were notorious for trying to reduce exhaust
emissions
with pneumatics, thermal delays, and other non-electronic systems. Those
systems created balky, stall-prone engines, so we need to move the date
back
to about 1970.

Second that! My 66 Fairlane with a 289 V8 got 17-21MPG. My 68
factory-special GTO would just lift the left front tire off the ground
coming off the line, and charge past 120MPH, but got 12 MPG. My buddy's
1972 340 Duster was slower than the Fairlane and barely got 12 MPG. The 72
made less nitrious oxide than the goat, which was good for LA smog, but made
more half-burned hydrocarbons that the rest of the country didn't need.