|
News: 'Hi Tech Zapper to Stop Car Chases'
Also keeps those pesky UFO's in check:-)....
Hmmm..I though cars were better shielded than that. Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...259138,00.html 73, Chip N1IR |
In message , Fractenna
writes Also keeps those pesky UFO's in check:-).... Hmmm..I though cars were better shielded than that. Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...259138,00.html 73, Chip N1IR In the UK, we're not supposed to use 'unproved' commercial equipment in modern cars (although I think we can still use homebrew). This is supposedly to avoid the risk of interfering with the electronics (although I can't really think why 'approved' equipment should be better). It's all to do with being a part of the European Community, and the rule-making bureaucrats in Brussels. Obviously, the real solution to the problem would be to improve the immunity of the car electronics (which costs), but you now have a good reason to justify not doing this. In the UK, we pay a TV licence. There are detector vans which track down offenders. The obvious way was to look for the radiation of the local oscillator in the tuner. However, a radiating local oscillator is a 'bad thing' because it interferes with things. With modern sets, it's probably easier to look for the rubbish from the switch-mode power supplies (which is often worse when the set is in standby). It used to be said that the TV manufacturers were actually willing to improve their designs in order to reduce the radiation, but were pressured not to do so! I'm not sure how true any of this is. I've a sneaky feeling that costs again come into it somewhere. Cheers, Ian. -- |
"Fractenna" , For military use it ought'a work fine. For civilian use, I can see lots of problems, targeting only the one vehicle, and causing permanent damage, for instance... 'Doc |
Ian Jackson wrote:
In the UK, we pay a TV licence. There are detector vans which track down offenders. The obvious way was to look for the radiation of the local oscillator in the tuner. However, a radiating local oscillator is a 'bad thing' because it interferes with things. With modern sets, it's probably easier to look for the rubbish from the switch-mode power supplies (which is often worse when the set is in standby). It used to be said that the TV manufacturers were actually willing to improve their designs in order to reduce the radiation, but were pressured not to do so! I'm not sure how true any of this is. I've a sneaky feeling that costs again come into it somewhere. Cheers, Ian. Which reminded me of the "Cat Detector Van" sketch. Monty Python was so good. tom K0TAR |
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:36:11 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: In the UK, we pay a TV licence. There are detector vans which track down offenders. The obvious way was to look for the radiation of the local oscillator in the tuner. However, a radiating local oscillator is a 'bad thing' because it interferes with things. With modern sets, it's probably easier to look for the rubbish from the switch-mode power supplies (which is often worse when the set is in standby). It used to be said that the TV manufacturers were actually willing to improve their designs in order to reduce the radiation, but were pressured not to do so! I'm not sure how true any of this is. I've a sneaky feeling that costs again come into it somewhere. Cheers, Ian. Which reminded me of the "Cat Detector Van" sketch. Monty Python was so good. tom K0TAR Don't you mean the "Looney Detector Van"? Howard |
Howard wrote:
Don't you mean the "Looney Detector Van"? Howard I think there may have been that one, too. It was fertile ground for jokes in the UK at the time as I remember. tom K0TAR |
Howard wrote:
Which reminded me of the "Cat Detector Van" sketch. Monty Python was so good. tom K0TAR Don't you mean the "Looney Detector Van"? Howard :-) "I've never seen so many bleeding aerials." I think it's called the 'Fish License' sketch. jk ac6xg |
Howard mensch90249 wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:36:11 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: In the UK, we pay a TV licence. There are detector vans which track down offenders. The obvious way was to look for the radiation of the local oscillator in the tuner. However, a radiating local oscillator is a 'bad thing' because it interferes with things. With modern sets, it's probably easier to look for the rubbish from the switch-mode power supplies (which is often worse when the set is in standby). It used to be said that the TV manufacturers were actually willing to improve their designs in order to reduce the radiation, but were pressured not to do so! I'm not sure how true any of this is. I've a sneaky feeling that costs again come into it somewhere. Cheers, Ian. Which reminded me of the "Cat Detector Van" sketch. Monty Python was so good. tom K0TAR Don't you mean the "Looney Detector Van"? 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 . . Sometimes I wonder about these academics . . last month it was the University of Rhode Island . . Howard w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote:
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 perp from having his own RF gun? Are the cops going to be driving 1960 Pontiacs? -- 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 Moore wrote:
What prevents the perp from having his own RF gun? Well, nothing. You can't outlaw them, because then only they would have them! Guy runs into a 7-11 wielding an RF gun and says: "Gimme all the money or I'll screw up your TV reception!" :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Kelly wrote: 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 perp from having his own RF gun? Are the cops going to be driving 1960 Pontiacs? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp They should be so lucky! In 60, Pontiac was building a race rep, and a friend of mine bought a 3/4 race special factory package Bonneville. It may have been heavy, and the front hood looked like the horizon, but you could chirp the tires at 80 MPH going into 4th! IIRC, also about 6 MPG. It would make one fantastic freeway cruiser. Ed wb6wsn |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... 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. Ed wb6wsn |
Ed Price wrote:
. . . That means that the ideal immune vehicle would be about pre-1980, with a Kettering ignition system. . . My 1972 VW squareback had true electronic fuel injection controlled by a transistorized analog computer (made on a sturdy PCB with discrete components and tucked into a rear fender well). It did have a Kettering ignition system, but on 15 meters my HF rig would stop it dead in its tracks by shutting down the fuel injection. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Ed Price wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote: What prevents the perp from having his own RF gun? Are the cops going to be driving 1960 Pontiacs? They should be so lucky! In 60, Pontiac was building a race rep, and a friend of mine bought a 3/4 race special factory package Bonneville. It may have been heavy, and the front hood looked like the horizon, but you could chirp the tires at 80 MPH going into 4th! IIRC, also about 6 MPG. It would make one fantastic freeway cruiser. The reason I asked is that I used to have one of those as a company car. As I remember, it was 455 in^3. I used to drive the radar cops bats*it by slowing down to 70 when approaching an overpass and then going 120 in the straightaway out in West Texas. The radar cops *always* parked just on the other side of an overpass in 1960. -- 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! =----- |
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. "Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... In message , Fractenna writes Also keeps those pesky UFO's in check:-).... Hmmm..I though cars were better shielded than that. Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...259138,00.html 73, Chip N1IR In the UK, we're not supposed to use 'unproved' commercial equipment in modern cars (although I think we can still use homebrew). This is supposedly to avoid the risk of interfering with the electronics (although I can't really think why 'approved' equipment should be better). It's all to do with being a part of the European Community, and the rule-making bureaucrats in Brussels. Obviously, the real solution to the problem would be to improve the immunity of the car electronics (which costs), but you now have a good reason to justify not doing this. In the UK, we pay a TV licence. There are detector vans which track down offenders. The obvious way was to look for the radiation of the local oscillator in the tuner. However, a radiating local oscillator is a 'bad thing' because it interferes with things. With modern sets, it's probably easier to look for the rubbish from the switch-mode power supplies (which is often worse when the set is in standby). It used to be said that the TV manufacturers were actually willing to improve their designs in order to reduce the radiation, but were pressured not to do so! I'm not sure how true any of this is. I've a sneaky feeling that costs again come into it somewhere. Cheers, Ian. -- |
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. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
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. -- Jim Pennino You guys certainly are a cheerful bunch. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
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. -- Jim Pennino You guys certainly are a cheerful bunch. 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]. -- 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
"Ed Price" wrote in message news:UQeKc.17318$9I.16487@okepread02...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Kelly wrote: 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 perp from having his own RF gun? Are the cops going to be driving 1960 Pontiacs? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp They should be so lucky! In 60, Pontiac was building a race rep, and a friend of mine bought a 3/4 race special factory package Bonneville. It may have been heavy, and the front hood looked like the horizon, but you could chirp the tires at 80 MPH going into 4th! IIRC, also about 6 MPG. It would make one fantastic freeway cruiser. The trunks of those puppies were the other half of the horizon. A kW mobile rig in the trunk? No sweat! And with room left over for the suitcases. Then along came the Chrysler 300s. The PA State Police bought a flock of "Police Special" 300s which they used to nail those big GM and Mopar cruisers. The 300s surfed the PA Turnpike at 130-140 mph "CCS". 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 Ed wb6wsn |
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. "Tdonaly" wrote in message news:20040718011930.22984.00001865@mb- You guys certainly are a cheerful bunch. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
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? |
|
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 |
|
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com