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.
--

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! =-----

"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

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.
--