Searching \ for '[EE]: Electronic Warfare ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=electronic+warfare
Search entire site for: 'Electronic Warfare ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: Electronic Warfare ?'
2002\05\29@190711 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Here's a device which appeared to have destroyed an electronic camera at a
significant distance away. Bit large and expensive for the average home use
though.

       http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/tidbin.html

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\05\29@191735 by Tal Bejerano - AMC

flavicon
face
Thanks Russell no problem build it !
but where i can get a koala bear?

Regards

Tal Bejerano
AMC - ISRAEL


{Original Message removed}

2002\05\29@192955 by Gabriel Caffese

flavicon
face
Excelent, Russell !!!
Have you built it alone ?


-----Mensaje original-----
De: pic microcontroller discussion list
[spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU]En nombre de Russell McMahon
Enviado el: Miércoles, 29 de Mayo de 2002 20:03
Para: .....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Asunto: [EE]: Electronic Warfare ?


Here's a device which appeared to have destroyed an electronic camera at a
significant distance away. Bit large and expensive for the average home use
though.

       http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/tidbin.html

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\05\29@193838 by Jim

flavicon
face
I'm compelled to state that I *seriously* doubt personnel
were allowed anywhere near where a 'personnel hazard'
could possibly exist and I also doubt that the 'sidelobes'
at distance from such an antenna would contain enough energy
to damage electronics as well ...

Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\05\29@195234 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
> I'm compelled to state that I *seriously* doubt personnel
> were allowed anywhere near where a 'personnel hazard'
> could possibly exist and I also doubt that the 'sidelobes'
> at distance from such an antenna would contain enough energy
> to damage electronics as well ...


You may be right.
But there is an awful lot (technical term) of power involved.
Antenna gain is 40 million (75 dB) and transmit power is 400 kW so that's 16
Terrawatts (16,000,000,000,000) EIRP.

Wouldn't need to much of a sidelobe to do quite some damage. All the camera
needs is for some highish impedance point to rise to a voltage somewhat in
excess of local supply voltage and the energy from the camera supply could
do the rest - SCR latchup or something similar by a normally never biased on
pathway.



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\05\29@195951 by Jinx

face picon face
> Here's a device which appeared to have destroyed an electronic
> camera at a significant distance away. Bit large and expensive
> for the average home use though.
>
>         http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/tidbin.html

The one that Thunderbirds use is better - makes the film in the
camera go "sproing" out the back too

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\05\29@213448 by mark

flavicon
face
On 30 May 2002 at 11:50, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Antenna gain is 40 million (75 dB) and transmit power is 400 kW so that's 16
> Terrawatts (16,000,000,000,000) EIRP.
>

How about the poor birds flying over the antenna ?

---
Marcelo Puhl
Mensa Brasil member
http://www.mensa.com.br

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\05\30@100340 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "Wouldn't need to much of a sidelobe to do
   quite some damage."

Hmmm ... funny all these devices aren't affected by
the normal (nowadays) level of RF we see in urban
areas on a day to day basis - whether that RF is
from a hand-operated PL 2 (Power level 2  - .6 Watt
maximum) TDMA NADC (North American Digital Cellular)
phone or a European GSM OR the RF from multi-carrier
sectored serving cell site OR RF from any of the many
AM radio stations near urman areas OR the many 2-way radios
in use such as the two to five watt VHF and UHF busines
band and public service and Ham transceivers in fairly
widespread use ...

Or how about ASR RADAR that I'm sure have _much_ higher
relative sidelobe values and nearly corresponding peak
RF power from the transmitter located only 100s of
yards from the public (DFW Internatioal Airport as
an example) ...

Of course - the camera in cases like these also has it's
own integral first level of protection - protection that
also assits in providing some level of ESD (electro-static
discharge) or 'carpet/cat/shoe-shuffling static' that is
seen in every day use and handling -

- a semi (if not outright) conducting plastic case (perhaps
with a light flash of zinc film on the interior surface ...

Jim



{Original Message removed}

2002\05\30@133131 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Marcelo Puhl wrote:

>On 30 May 2002 at 11:50, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> Antenna gain is 40 million (75 dB) and transmit power is 400 kW so that's 16
>> Terrawatts (16,000,000,000,000) EIRP.
>>
>
>How about the poor birds flying over the antenna ?

Depending on flight speed, you get rare, medium rare, well done, or
overcooked free meals.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\05\30@163944 by Sean H. Breheny

face picon face
Russell,

You may be overlooking the fact that the stated antenna pattern is only
valid when far away from the antenna. For example, if you have an antenna
that has a 0.01 radian beamwidth, and a 100 meter diameter, you would
calculate that the beam should only be about 1 meter wide at 100 meters
away. However, it will be more like 100 meters wide. A rough approximation
(to the actual diffraction effects going on) is that the beam is as wide as
the dish and not divergent, right up to the point where the beamwidth times
distance equals the dish diameter, and it is divergent with the stated
beamwidth beyond that.

Also, it would have to be a mighty fast SCR to respond to GHz range
signals, wouldn't it?

Sean

At 11:50 AM 5/30/2002 +1200, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\05\30@233255 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> You may be overlooking the fact that the stated antenna pattern is only
> valid when far away from the antenna.

Maybe not so much overlooking as getting a feel for the overall power of the
beast. One is liable to be in the near field at the range he was taking
photos at. If instead we take the opposite extreme (also incorrect) and
assume that the power was radiated half isotropically - ie linearly in the
whole direction then one is still standing in the lair of a 400 kW beast.
Taking inverse square law drop off (also incorrect here) and comparing with
a 1 watt transmitter - one would have to be sqrt(400,000) = 600 times closer
to get the same result. If the photo was taken from 200 metres away (can't
recall the picture well) that would be the same as placing the camera within
1/3 of a metre of a working 1 wat transmitter aerial. Probably OK but if it
did cause problems one would not be surprised. If though there is any sort
of gain over isotropic where you are standing due to a lobe etc then the
situation gets worse. I suspect the transmitter is at least a likely
contender for the caera's demise.

> Also, it would have to be a mighty fast SCR to respond to GHz range
> signals, wouldn't it?

I think you are liable to get bulk recitification of the power signal and
the resultant DC voltages can then play such games as they can find. The
effective diode(s) doesn't have to be optimised for th egHz range to still
work there.

Maybe we should do some more research. Anyone live near Canberra and have a
few spare digital cameras to spare ?



       RM






{Quote hidden}

16
> >Terrawatts (16,000,000,000,000) EIRP.
> >
> >Wouldn't need to much of a sidelobe to do quite some damage. All the
camera
> >needs is for some highish impedance point to rise to a voltage somewhat
in
> >excess of local supply voltage and the energy from the camera supply
could
> >do the rest - SCR latchup or something similar by a normally never biased
on
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...