mobile phone jammers

[Meeba]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pesky-public-chatterboxes-get-signals-blocked/2007/12/01/1196394689074.html

Secretly ld love one of those battery operated ones to flick on when l see drivers on the phone!
But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......

Maybe the range could be smaller + be put inside cars to prevent phone use in moving car.
l reckon all drivers caught texting should have their phone instantly confiscated and smashed by cops

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-02, Meeba (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...signals-blocked/2007/12/01/1196394689074.html
>
> Secretly ld love one of those battery operated ones to flick on when l
> see drivers on the phone!
> But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......
>
> Maybe the range could be smaller + be put inside cars to prevent phone
> use in moving car.
> l reckon all drivers caught texting should have their phone instantly
> confiscated and smashed by cops

Nah, I reckon their batteries should explode

I thouroughly endorse the products and/or services advertised on the
site mentioned in that article. However, I believe the 40W device
should come with big warning labels "if you value your balls, stay
away from this".

The (U.S.?) police are currently experimenting with microwave devices
to disable post-1979 car electronics. I want one of those too.

--
TimC
We are no longer the knights who say "ni"
We are the knights who say "icky icky (Comet) Ikeya-Zhang zoooboing!"
--Lord Ender on /.

 

[Adam F]

TimC wrote:
> On 2007-12-02, Meeba (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...signals-blocked/2007/12/01/1196394689074.html
>>
>> Secretly ld love one of those battery operated ones to flick on when l
>> see drivers on the phone!
>> But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......
>>
>> Maybe the range could be smaller + be put inside cars to prevent phone
>> use in moving car.
>> l reckon all drivers caught texting should have their phone instantly
>> confiscated and smashed by cops
>
> Nah, I reckon their batteries should explode
>
> I thouroughly endorse the products and/or services advertised on the
> site mentioned in that article. However, I believe the 40W device
> should come with big warning labels "if you value your balls, stay
> away from this".
>
> The (U.S.?) police are currently experimenting with microwave devices
> to disable post-1979 car electronics. I want one of those too.
>

Hmm there are quite a few critical systems which are now electronic on
eg new Audis - you could find your gearbox suddenly going into reverse
or engine management system going nuts and opening the throttle wide.
Come to think of it, I bet the police are looking forward to the fun

--
//Adam F

 

[John Tserkezis]

TimC wrote:

> The (U.S.?) police are currently experimenting with microwave devices
> to disable post-1979 car electronics. I want one of those too.

Have you got a link for this? I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Motor vehicle electronics lives within one of the most vicious electrical
environments around. There's a lot of work that goes into not only shielding,
but recovery (rebooting) of the microprocessor when things go wobbly.
This is not a feature, you absolutely need it otherwise your car would work
much like M$ Windows, it stops in the middle of the freeway, you turn off,
crank again, and away you go.

It's so good at it, it could crash and restart without the barest glitch as
far as the driver is concerned.

With this in mind, you would need some serious interference to clap out the
thing.

This is one of the things that I'd want to see before I believe it.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Terryc]

Meeba wrote:

> But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......

AFAIK emergency vehicles do not reply on mobile telephones.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Meeba wrote:
>
>> But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......
>
> AFAIK emergency vehicles do not reply on mobile telephones.

Wrong again Terry. Our fire vehicles have an inbuilt hands-free mobile
phone. Put there by FESA.

Theo

 

[John Tserkezis]

TimC wrote:

> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/11/29/engine-car-stop.html

"In tests on four vehicles, the researchers were able to disable cars from 10
to 50 feet away."

Hardly practical, considering the projected size of the transmission
antenna.. Not something you could swivel in a practical manner on the side of
the road, and probably not viable on the roof of a vehicle either...

It'll be a long while before I become concerned about it.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Wrong again Terry. Our fire vehicles have an inbuilt hands-free mobile
> phone. Put there by FESA.

Wow, this is your sole means of comminication? Explains a lot.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Wrong again Terry. Our fire vehicles have an inbuilt hands-free
>> mobile phone. Put there by FESA.

> Wow, this is your sole means of comminication? Explains a lot.

Come on Terry, you're not that stupid, are you? They're there in case of an
emergency that they don't want to discuss on the radio.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-03, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Terryc wrote:
>> Meeba wrote:
>>
>>> But not good as they block emergency vehicle transmissions.......
>>
>> AFAIK emergency vehicles do not reply on mobile telephones.
>
> Wrong again Terry. Our fire vehicles have an inbuilt hands-free mobile
> phone. Put there by FESA.

Wow. You get that much coverage? It'd be utterly useless with our
RFS.

That ******* communication authority wouldn't allow us to renew our
VHF license when the beancounters let it laps a few month. VHF was
the only practical and reliable means of contacting all the techs for
the entire duration of their trip home. But UHF is the way of the
future, man. Like 3G. And those 3G aerials on cars are such fashion
statements.

--
TimC
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki on ASR

 

[tim]

On Dec 2, 9:20 pm, Meeba <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Secretly ld love one of those battery operated ones to flick on when l
> see drivers on the phone!

A driver ON the phone is far less dangerous than a driver looking at
the phone, pushing buttons, trying to work out why his call just
dropped out.

Maybe you could work out something (with frequency Doppler-shift? :-
P ), so it doesn't do anything unless the offending phone is moving
away from the jammer. That way you could be pretty sure the resulting
distracted driver doesn't run you over.

tim

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> On 2007-12-03, Theo Bekkers wrote

>> Wrong again Terry. Our fire vehicles have an inbuilt hands-free
>> mobile phone. Put there by FESA.

> Wow. You get that much coverage? It'd be utterly useless with our
> RFS.

Our local coverage is much better since we got 3G, especially with a vehicle
arial. We have a few hills and valleys and radio reception is iffy, when it
works at all. The phone is used for personal messages and stuff like
'someone is injured'.

Theo

 

[Meeba]

A driver ON the phone is far less dangerous than a driver looking at
the phone, pushing buttons, trying to work out why his call just
dropped out.



tim[/QUOTE]
l dont know how they work ,
but l figured if it was in my pocket and lm moving ,ld have a buffer zone of phoneless area of whatever distance it reaches