Post by thread:[OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Illeal? Hardly

How's that? You are emmitting within the allowed power levels in a band which allows these emissions. Chapter and verse please... R Shawn Wilton wrote: {Quote hidden}> > It's also quite illegal. > > Dwayne Reid wrote: > > > At 10:41 AM 6/15/2004, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > > > >> OK, WAY off topic, but MAYBE it could be done with a PIC... Is anyone > >> aware of a LEGAL transmitter that would trip consumer radar detectors? > >> I'd > >> sure like to have one in my car as people pass me at 20 or 30 miles per > >> hour over the speed limit... > > > > > > Do a web search for "trolling for tailgates". What you are describing is > > on-going serious fun for a few mental midgets on American highways. I'm > > seriously considering joining the party <grin>. > > > > dwayne -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

If you're licensed for it, sure. Why do you think a radar gun operator is required to be licensed by the FCC to operate said equipment? Robert Rolf wrote: {Quote hidden}> How's that? You are emmitting within the allowed power levels in a band > which allows these emissions. > > Chapter and verse please... > R > > Shawn Wilton wrote: > >>It's also quite illegal. >> >>Dwayne Reid wrote: >> >> >>>At 10:41 AM 6/15/2004, Harold Hallikainen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>OK, WAY off topic, but MAYBE it could be done with a PIC... Is anyone >>>>aware of a LEGAL transmitter that would trip consumer radar detectors? >>>>I'd >>>>sure like to have one in my car as people pass me at 20 or 30 miles per >>>>hour over the speed limit... >>> >>> >>>Do a web search for "trolling for tailgates". What you are describing is >>>on-going serious fun for a few mental midgets on American highways. I'm >>>seriously considering joining the party <grin>. >>> >>>dwayne > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Last time I checked you were not allowed to transmit at the same band as radar, and lidar. I may have to double check that though. Especially if enough people tell me I'm full of sh*t. ;-) -Shawn David VanHorn wrote: {Quote hidden}> At 12:39 PM 6/15/2004 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >>If you're licensed for it, sure. Why do you think a radar gun operator >>is required to be licensed by the FCC to operate said equipment? > > > Because it's operating at a higher power. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Robert Rolf <spam_OUTRobert.RolfTakeThisOuTUALBERTA.CA> wrote: > Shawn Wilton wrote: > > Dwayne Reid wrote: > > > Do a web search for "trolling for tailgates". What you are > > > describing is on-going serious fun for a few mental midgets on > > > American highways. > > > > It's also quite illegal. > > How's that? You are emmitting within the allowed power levels in a band > which allows these emissions. I know of no band where emissions to deliberately cause interference or "for no reason at all" are allowed. Even the ISM bands have restrictions. -- Dave Tweed -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Ah yes. My gf's dad nailed a cop in court because the ham in his vehicle was throwing off the radar to such a degree that when they pointed it at his car, it read 60 mph sitting still. :-) Fun fun. David VanHorn wrote: {Quote hidden}> At 12:48 PM 6/15/2004 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >>Last time I checked you were not allowed to transmit at the same band as >>radar, and lidar. I may have to double check that though. Especially >>if enough people tell me I'm full of sh*t. ;-) > > > Police X band is at 10.525, the ham band is right next door 10.0 to 10.5GHz The K band is similar. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

No, it was his ham. How or why it happened I don't know. I'm still learning RF. But he's beaten the cops so many times and caused them so much in fines (hundreds of 1000's), that they don't harass him anymore, period. Next time I see him I'll get the specs on the story and post. -Shawn Robert Rolf wrote: {Quote hidden}> Shawn Wilton wrote: > >>Ah yes. My gf's dad nailed a cop in court because the ham in his >>vehicle was throwing off the radar to such a degree that when they >>pointed it at his car, it read 60 mph sitting still. :-) > > > > Or it was measuring the frequency of the fan blades in the car. > Something near 1kHz if memory serves. > > Not too many hams have X band trancievers in their cars since > you need a dish/horn to get any kind of range, so mobile work is tricky. > > R > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

bull! you're operating at a power high enough to actually interfere with radar guns in that case, which is illegal, and you are actually going to be interfering with the use of speed guns! you'll actually be making it harder to catch people as the signal levels will have to be comparable or higher than the signal strength of a reflected signal from a speed gun pointed at a vehicle. yes, you will actually be obstructing justice, and frankly you deserve to be charged for the offense, as a felony! there are gadgets that claim to "jam" radar guns and that are legal, because they work at too low a power to actually work, those that actually do work are illegal because of the power level and because it's an obstruction of justice. manufacturers who fit into the second class are quickly arrested and get to live in a federal prison, those that make bogus equipment are tolerated, even though it's fraud (because the device doesn't work) because those in power think it's funny to watch speeders get ripped off and have a false sense of security. note that the devices that do not work actually encourage speeding, and yet law enforcement chooses not to arrest the manufacturer and seller who are committing fraud and making the roads more dangerous, because they are also increasing the governments income from speeding tickets. corruption at it's finest. it makes the roads more dangerous, and makes people money, but it makes "the right" people money so the fraud is usually allowed. the same arguments about obstruction of justice and encouraging rather than stopping speeders also apply to lasers used to fool laser speed guns, not to mention the potential injury threat depending on the operator not knowing what they are doing and using to powerful a laser. even if it's relatively low power like in a laser speed gun, do you think it's safe to look right at? do you suppose a laser speed gun is safe to look right at from close range, like if you're looking at it? what do you suppose happens when somebody's kid finds your laser box on the side of the road and takes it home and stares at it or takes it apart, or plays with it and accidentally turns up the laser power? blindness, that's what happens, or at least some vision damage, even if it's "only" a permanent blind spot, which they may be too afraid to tell their parents about, and then they get a drivers license even though they have an undiagnosed vision problem, now that's safety! David VanHorn wrote: {Quote hidden}> > At 12:39 PM 6/15/2004 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >If you're licensed for it, sure. Why do you think a radar gun operator > >is required to be licensed by the FCC to operate said equipment? > > Because it's operating at a higher power. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

perhaps, but if you cause interference, it's illegal, especially if it's deliberate. also most of the current radar detectors have dsp software to distinguish between static sources and speed guns based on modulation characteristics etc. now deliberately modulating a signal to fool them would definitely be illegal, if not actually enforced. still obnoxious as hell either way, and you will still be interfering with speed guns which can only detect the strongest signal. you would likely be blinding the speed guns when used in the same area. David VanHorn wrote: > > At 12:48 PM 6/15/2004 -0700, Shawn Wilton wrote: > > >Last time I checked you were not allowed to transmit at the same band as > >radar, and lidar. I may have to double check that though. Especially > >if enough people tell me I'm full of sh*t. ;-) > > Police X band is at 10.525, the ham band is right next door 10.0 to 10.5GHz The K band is similar. ----- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

At 05:31 PM 6/15/2004 -0600, Philip Stortz wrote: >perhaps, but if you cause interference, it's illegal, especially if it's >deliberate. If my licensed part 97 operations cause your part 15 toy to go haywire, that's your problem. Read the regs, especially that part on the part 15 plate about "and must accept any interference, including that which may cause undesired operation". > now deliberately modulating a signal to fool them >would definitely be illegal, if not actually enforced. OTOH I can send video and sound (not music) all day long through my part 97 microwave beacon. I can also key it for a CW contact. > still obnoxious >as hell either way, and you will still be interfering with speed guns >which can only detect the strongest signal. you would likely be >blinding the speed guns when used in the same area. Darn. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

yeah, if you're doing something useful in some classes you can mess up the lesser classes like part 15 toys, but speed guns are probably not considered part 15 toys. as far as deliberately messing things up with no other purpose i honestly don't know, but it would certainly violate the spirit of the fcc regs, which leaves it in the realm of an administrative law judges opinion most likely, again not something to bet on.... and it's not darn, it's darn good, other people aren't there for your amusement and playing, this is real life, and believe me there are people out there with even less of a sense of humor than some police have, and a lot lower opinion of people who mess with them. David VanHorn wrote: {Quote hidden}> > At 05:31 PM 6/15/2004 -0600, Philip Stortz wrote: > > >perhaps, but if you cause interference, it's illegal, especially if it's > >deliberate. > > If my licensed part 97 operations cause your part 15 toy to go haywire, that's your problem. Read the regs, especially that part on the part 15 plate about "and must accept any interference, including that which may cause undesired operation". > > > now deliberately modulating a signal to fool them > >would definitely be illegal, if not actually enforced. > > OTOH I can send video and sound (not music) all day long through my part 97 microwave beacon. I can also key it for a CW contact. > > > still obnoxious > >as hell either way, and you will still be interfering with speed guns > >which can only detect the strongest signal. you would likely be > >blinding the speed guns when used in the same area. > > Darn. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

sorry, i don't believe in bottom posting. i know the arguments, i don't agree with them, it's not a mandatory standard like some things. i also don't believe in html in email which i'm pleased to say i haven't seen much of on this list. i do occasionally inline post, particularly when things get lengthy. i also trim quotes, and hopefully left enough for you to know what i was talking about if you weren't following things. David VanHorn wrote: {Quote hidden}> > At 05:14 PM 6/15/2004 -0600, Philip Stortz wrote: > > >bull! you're operating at a power high enough to actually interfere > >with radar guns in that case, which is illegal, and you are actually > >going to be interfering with the use of speed guns! > > If only you'd bottom post and inline quote, so we know what you're ranting about, specifically. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

> sorry, i don't believe in bottom posting. i know the arguments, i don't > agree with them, it's not a mandatory standard like some things. As you say, it's not mandatory, but if you want people to do justice to your input then its the minimum you can do to help yourself. If you don't care how people treat your posts, then by all means post any way you wish. As an HONEST comment, your posts are an utter pain to read. When you look at the top of a post on a thread which has several subthreads running and several people commenting per subthread then in almost every case your comments make absolutely no sense whatsoever. In essentially all your posts it has been necessary to dive down the post to the original, digest it, and then go back to the top. The inclination if not, so far, the actuality, is to skip the post. Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

um, no, you didn't miss the point, but i don't think most people enter their vehicles intending to injure or kill others, if they do they then cars are actually terribly, terribly safe already. there is a difference between negligence and intent, and it's even recognized legally most of the time, except when people get overly emotionally involved and lose objectivity. most bad drivers aren't doing it to play with people, they are driving poorly because they are poor drivers, many of them lacking the motor skills and concentration to do a really good job, and many of them just unaware of how fragile their own life is or relatively unconcerned about their life or admittedly sometimes the lives of others, but killing in a car accident is a highly effective way to get yourself killed, so no i don't really think it is a game like "russian roulette", now there's a game for fools who don't value life. cars are not offensive weapons, they are vehicles, like nearly everything, they can of course be used to injure or kill, and occasional someone does that, deliberately running people down, but it's surprisingly rare given the ready access and effectiveness. on the other hand, you are being deliberate if you send out an rf signal for the specific reason that you want to see tail lights, and that is in the game playing domain. Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > other people aren't there for your amusement and playing, this is real > life, > > Well said, even if not, perhaps, well meant. > This IS real life. Cars are offensive weapons. People who use them > offensively as they play their selfish games with red lights and other > people's lives. unnecessary speed (as opposed perhaps to just unofficial > speed) need to appreciate your excellent point. > > Or did I misunderstand you ? ;-) > > RM > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

hey, what you consider a pain, i consider less of a pain than what you like. as far as people "doing justice to my input", they can take or leave my thoughts, opinions, and insights, it is their' loss or gain. i'm not looking for brownie points. i do try to inline quote when i have many, specific comments, but i'm going to be pretty casual on this list. if it isn't worth it to you, feel free not to read my post, but i do bother to read post that are bottom posted, even though, honestly, it is a pain. just be glad i spell check.... now that makes a big difference. Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > sorry, i don't believe in bottom posting. i know the arguments, i don't > > agree with them, it's not a mandatory standard like some things. > > As you say, it's not mandatory, but if you want people to do justice to your > input then its the minimum you can do to help yourself. > If you don't care how people treat your posts, then by all means post any > way you wish. > > As an HONEST comment, your posts are an utter pain to read. When you look at > the top of a post on a thread which has several subthreads running and > several people commenting per subthread then in almost every case your > comments make absolutely no sense whatsoever. In essentially all your posts > it has been necessary to dive down the post to the original, digest it, and > then go back to the top. The inclination if not, so far, the actuality, is > to skip the post. > > Russell McMahon > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:39:37 -0600, Philip Stortz <.....madscientist.at.largeKILLspam@spam@earthlink.net> wrote: > > hey, what you consider a pain, i consider less of a pain than what you > like. as far as people "doing justice to my input", they can take or > leave my thoughts, opinions, and insights, it is their' loss or gain. > i'm not looking for brownie points. i do try to inline quote when i > have many, specific comments, but i'm going to be pretty casual on this > list. if it isn't worth it to you, feel free not to read my post, but i > do bother to read post that are bottom posted, even though, honestly, it > is a pain. just be glad i spell check.... now that makes a big difference. > Now if only you'd locate the Shift key... -- -Randy Glenn Computer Eng. and Mgt. Year IV, McMaster University Chair, McMaster IEEE Student Branch randy.glennKILLspamgmail.com - glennrb-at-mcmaster.ca .....randy.glennKILLspam.....computer.org - randy_glenn-at-ieee.org http://www.randyglenn.ca -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

hey, you know that's not the problem, i know where the shift, control and "command" keys are (i'm on a mac, they use command or a non printing character marking for what pc's call "alt"). the problem is getting the wetware to correctly interface with it, the rest of the interface works fairly well. Randy Glenn wrote: {Quote hidden}> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:39:37 -0600, Philip Stortz > <EraseMEmadscientist.at.largespam_OUTTakeThisOuTearthlink.net> wrote: > > > > hey, what you consider a pain, i consider less of a pain than what you > > like. as far as people "doing justice to my input", they can take or > > leave my thoughts, opinions, and insights, it is their' loss or gain. > > i'm not looking for brownie points. i do try to inline quote when i > > have many, specific comments, but i'm going to be pretty casual on this > > list. if it isn't worth it to you, feel free not to read my post, but i > > do bother to read post that are bottom posted, even though, honestly, it > > is a pain. just be glad i spell check.... now that makes a big difference. > > > > Now if only you'd locate the Shift key... > > -- > -Randy Glenn > Computer Eng. and Mgt. Year IV, McMaster University > Chair, McMaster IEEE Student Branch > > randy.glennspam_OUTgmail.com - glennrb-at-mcmaster.ca > @spam@randy.glennKILLspamcomputer.org - randy_glenn-at-ieee.org > http://www.randyglenn.ca > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics