Searching \ for 'How to Stop cellular phones ?' 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=how+stop+cellular
Search entire site for: 'How to Stop cellular phones ?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'How to Stop cellular phones ?'
1998\11\15@155356 by Spk41q

picon face
Hello,

Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
know that there are solutions, but how to make?

Cordially,
Dan

1998\11\15@160439 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
Spk41q@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
> engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
> know that there are solutions, but how to make?
>
> Cordially,
> Dan


There is no legal way to do this.
Some companies (outside the US) market jammers, but these are not even
close to legal.
I won't even get into the possible liability issues.

1998\11\15@165837 by John Hebenton

flavicon
face
>Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are
HF
>engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable
telephones. I
>know that there are solutions, but how to make?


Ignoring the legal issues, I would imagine detecting the channels being used
and transmitting a signal to "block" them. The only problem could be that
upon detecting data corruption if your phone were to hop to use another
channel.
You could possibly just create wideband noise, but I would have thought
would be difficult to control in frequency terms. Seriously non-compliant to
any EMC legislation you might want to think of, not to mention radio
transmission laws.

In the same vane, Zetron make a cellphone detector aimed at medical
establishments.

1998\11\15@175922 by paulb

flavicon
face
There is only *one* way, and a very good way to block cellular phones,
but it is only applicable to when the hospital is built.  It has
valuable side benefits.

 Screen everything (including the windows!).
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1998\11\15@234346 by Sean Breheny
face picon face
At 03:51 PM 11/15/98 EST, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
>engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable
telephones. I
>know that there are solutions, but how to make?
>
>Cordially,
>Dan
>


Gee, I'm just wondering why a hospital would want to stop cell phones? My
first guess was to prevent them from interfereing with sensitive medical
equipment. If so, then any of the suggestions of jamming and sheilding
wouldn't help things much.

Sean

+-------------------------------+
| Sean Breheny                  |
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM|
| Electrical Engineering Student|
+-------------------------------+
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
spam_OUTshb7TakeThisOuTspamcornell.edu  Phone(USA): (607) 253-0315 ICQ #: 3329174

1998\11\16@020209 by Virtual

picon face
You could easily make all analog phones non functional, digital phones are
another story though depending on if you have them in your area since they
operate on a high frequency.  Normal analog phones when turned on search for a
control channel, the strongest one near them.  You could do two things, either
transmit on all the control channels near you, probably 4 or so, sending garbage
to confuse the phone so it can't find a signal or you could emulate a control
channel that's not near you so the phone always goes to that one, yet it can't
establish a call though it.

Could turn out to be a big damn project and if you are transmitting a control
channel and faking one that's not around you, you would have to keep the
transmissions local to that building.  Either way the FCC would have a hay day
with that, but it would be cool to emulate one in your home to see if you could
do it.

John

p.s. Just for any replies on obtaining transmitters it IS possible, don't ask me
how :)

1998\11\16@064221 by Stefan Sczekalla-Waldschmidt

flavicon
face
Hi,

I would use a different way,

If active they are emmitting a electric field which can be detected.
use this detection an every door and occasionally in the building to
sound
a "warning" device. ( large hammer ... )

especially near the intensive care section ....

everyone using a cellular in a hosptal should get hitten !

My 2 cents...

       Stefan Sczekalla-Waldschmidt
       .....sswKILLspamspam@spam@oikossw.de

1998\11\16@082527 by wwl

picon face
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:51:31 EST, you wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
>engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
>know that there are solutions, but how to make?
>
>Cordially,
>Dan

The best solution would be to equip the hospital with suitably immune
equipment - I wouldn't like my life to depend on a piece of eqipment
that could malfunction when exposed to less than a watt of RF!

The only legal things you could do would be to shield (difficult), or
install an RF detector near known sensitive areas.

1998\11\16@082534 by wwl

picon face
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:59:35 -0500, you wrote:

>At 03:51 PM 11/15/98 EST, you wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
>>engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable
>telephones. I
>>know that there are solutions, but how to make?
>>
>>Cordially,
>>Dan
>>
>
>
>Gee, I'm just wondering why a hospital would want to stop cell phones? My
>first guess was to prevent them from interfereing with sensitive medical
>equipment. If so, then any of the suggestions of jamming and sheilding
>wouldn't help things much.
Shielding would work, as a phone will not transmit until it receives a
signal from the base station.
Also jamming would probably require less power than that emitted by
the phone.

1998\11\16@084446 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Gee, I'm just wondering why a hospital would want to stop cell phones? My
>first guess was to prevent them from interfereing with sensitive medical
>equipment. If so, then any of the suggestions of jamming and sheilding
>wouldn't help things much.

Because they interfere with in-building paging, for one thing.

They _can_ cause problems, especially in CCU and ICU where some monitors
may be affected.

Also, because hospitals make money from the phone and TV rentals.  (I used
to develop these for a living, still involved in it on the side).

Andy


==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\16@102401 by John Griessen

flavicon
face
Sounds like a cookbook a terrorist could make use of....

-----Original Message-----
You could easily make all analog phones non functional, digital phones are
another story though depending on if you have them in your area since they
operate on a high frequency.  Normal analog phones when turned on search for
a
control channel, the strongest one near them.  You could do two things,
either
transmit on all the control channels near you, probably 4 or so, sending
garbage
to confuse the phone so it can't find a signal or you could emulate a
control
channel that's not near you so the phone always goes to that one, yet it
can't
establish a call though it.

1998\11\16@103644 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Put up a sign:

****************************************
*        SHUT OFF YOUR PHONES          *
*     Or our X-rays will destroy       *
*        it's recieve cirquit.         *
****************************************

Technical language always frighen somebody,
even if it is nonsense....

--------

This might be a long shot, but:

Maybe it is possible to detect the EMI from the phone; from PLL recieve
unit, microcontroller etc.

Implemented in the entrance or alike, so there are no other EMI sources.
Maybe between the double doors, with metal armed glass to make a EMI-shield.

Then it might detect any not shut off phones.


/Morgan

1998\11\16@110936 by Brian Striggow

flavicon
face
Drifting slightly off track--

When i worked at a hospital as a medic, we couldn't resist X-raying all
manner of inappropriate objects, including our portable radios.  This
really irritated the guys at the radio shop, who insisted that you could
ruin a radio with X-rays.  I was skeptical (empirically, we never ruined
one), but with our recent discussions on eprom erasure, I got to
wondering ---

Could X-rays erase an eprom??  I note in my spectral chart that x-rays
are the next step up in energy from UV.


On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Morgan Olsson wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\11\16@114310 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:

> There is only *one* way, and a very good way to block cellular phones,
> but it is only applicable to when the hospital is built.  It has
> valuable side benefits.
>
>   Screen everything (including the windows!).

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we have a storage room here to keep
valuables in, and it's entirely metallic, about 5x2x3 m, welded mild steel
plates (about 5 mm), ditto doors, ceiling, and floor, and very few cables
going in (one: for the lights). I have to say that my cellular won't drop
a single notch on the S scale once inside, with the doors closed firmly.
Monkeying with ferrite suppressors for UHF on the electrical cable
pass-through didn't bring any relief either.

BUT I have built a cellular detector in 1996, used to mute a car radio
when the cellular is in use, and I imagine that a suitable device could be
used for hospitals. It may sound a continuous low volume alarm whenever
someone is near such a device. This would force a cellular user to get out
or hang up very fast.

Peter

1998\11\16@115552 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Sean Breheny wrote:

> Gee, I'm just wondering why a hospital would want to stop cell phones? My
> first guess was to prevent them from interfereing with sensitive medical
> equipment. If so, then any of the suggestions of jamming and sheilding
> wouldn't help things much.

;) I guess you can run about in a hospital using a cellular all the time
for about a year or so. Then, one day, you will stop someone's breather or
whatnot. But before that you will annoy a lot of people talking to
yourself under signs that say 'QUIET'. BTW an anti-cellular thingy would
be high on the wish lists of some other places too, such as public
libraries, restaurants and some bars. It could be quite a product.

My idea was to make an ARDF that locks on the strongest transmission
around and put a 50 Watt Parlight or strobe flasher on him/her using a
servo ;) I guess people would react REAL fast to that. It's not even hard
to do with the phasing method imho. 4 quarter lambda stubs poking out of
the light housing mounted on az/el servos and a 4-way PIN switch plus a
simple receiver and a PIC...

Peter

1998\11\16@115802 by John Payson

flavicon
face
>Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
>engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
>know that there are solutions, but how to make?

|The best solution would be to equip the hospital with suitably immune
|equipment - I wouldn't like my life to depend on a piece of eqipment
|that could malfunction when exposed to less than a watt of RF!

|The only legal things you could do would be to shield (difficult), or
|install an RF detector near known sensitive areas.

A couple of further observations:

[1] While there may be some specific places in a hospital where
   the RF from a cell phone could be problematical, there's no
   reason IMHO for a general prohibition within the entire build-
   ing unless the hospital seeks to make money off its own phone
   services.

[2] A cell cite designed specifically to serve the hospital would
   allow cell phones (and the site itself) to operate at their min-
   imum power level.

[3] Many restaurants and (esp.) theaters have prohibitions against
   cell phones for a reason entirely unrelated to RFI: the things
   can be really annoying to others when they go off.  Courtesy,
   though, is the main factor and legislating courtesy really does
   not work very well.

1998\11\16@120425 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Mike Harrison wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:51:31 EST, you wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
> >engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones.
I
> >know that there are solutions, but how to make?
> >
> >Cordially,
> >Dan
>
> The best solution would be to equip the hospital with suitably immune
> equipment - I wouldn't like my life to depend on a piece of eqipment
> that could malfunction when exposed to less than a watt of RF!
>
> The only legal things you could do would be to shield (difficult), or
> install an RF detector near known sensitive areas.

Actually I have a hunch about digital service being jam-able with only a
tiny fraction of the transmitter's power as a pulse jammer synced to the
tower's frames can invalidate only the required number of bits in EACH
service seek frame thus having all the phones in the area show 'no
service'. This may even be legal in places where spread spectrum 900 MHz
is legal, as there is no law about how to spread the spectrum, exactly (?)
<G>.

Peter

1998\11\16@120832 by Harrison Cooper

flavicon
face
There was an article in one of the electronics magazines a few months ago
(don't ask me which one, I get about 15 of em), but an Israel company that
developed this, for military apps but also being looked at for movie
theaters and such.  Anyone else remember that article?

1998\11\16@124557 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, John Payson wrote:

> [1] While there may be some specific places in a hospital where
>     the RF from a cell phone could be problematical, there's no
>     reason IMHO for a general prohibition within the entire build-
>     ing unless the hospital seeks to make money off its own phone
>     services.

a) It does seek to make money
b) People find it very annoying
c) You can never know whether there isn't a dying man behind the wall
you're leaning against while talking sotto voce.

> [2] A cell cite designed specifically to serve the hospital would
>     allow cell phones (and the site itself) to operate at their min-
>     imum power level.

There is no guarantee for this. RF levels inside a modern steel/concrete
building full of pipes and wires can jump as much as 55 dB from spot to
spot. If a fade-out occurs at your end while walking around and talking
the cellular's Tx power goes full tilt at the same moment or within a very
short time. I can feel mine go 'cold warm' against my ear when this
happens to me.

> [3] Many restaurants and (esp.) theaters have prohibitions against
>     cell phones for a reason entirely unrelated to RFI: the things
>     can be really annoying to others when they go off.  Courtesy,
>     though, is the main factor and legislating courtesy really does
>     not work very well.

I aggree fully. However, people who are on the listen all the time and go
to such places, purchase pocket vibrators which make the problem less bad,
and tend to walk outside to talk.

It would not be usch a bad idea to make a vibrator mandatory in every
cellular phone sold imho. The small extra price would not be an
inconvenience.

I also think that some extension to the cellular services to include the
enforcement of 'no talk' zones marked by local small code beacons or such
in hospitals etc would be a good idea. In this way, it would be possible
to even equip medical and other systems with a 'no cellular' beacon so it
turns any nearby phone off the air by itself. Some coding &
cryptographical issues arise but I think that they can be overcome with
currently legal means. Maybe the current text messaging system can be
adapted for this (to send a crypted message to turn callout / answer
service off for a certain short amount of time).

Peter

1998\11\16@124601 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Brian Striggow wrote:

> Drifting slightly off track--
>
> When i worked at a hospital as a medic, we couldn't resist X-raying all
> manner of inappropriate objects, including our portable radios.  This
> really irritated the guys at the radio shop, who insisted that you could
> ruin a radio with X-rays.  I was skeptical (empirically, we never ruined
> one), but with our recent discussions on eprom erasure, I got to
> wondering ---

The worst thing you can do is take a semiconductor-based device, power it,
and expose it to radiation while operating. Each and every junction in the
device is a potential short circuit, and some transistors and chips can be
turned into Thyristors between Vdd and GND by a properly (?) placed quanta
or two. If there is no fuse and the battery is strong enough this can
physically destroy the device on the spot.

> Could X-rays erase an eprom??  I note in my spectral chart that x-rays
> are the next step up in energy from UV.

X-rays will erase an EPROM but it is easy to over-do it and erase a few
junctions in the chip too. I don't know how. I knew someone who had a
radiologist friend place a 'full' EPROM below an X ray table (taped to it
from the underside of the drawer I think) and leave it there for a busy
day. The EPROM was quite dead after that.

Peter

1998\11\16@132146 by Harrison Cooper

flavicon
face
Just thinking about this a bit further.....

Most 'suggestions' on this are about blocking the use, or annoying the user
so he doesn't use it.  The basic problem is, that I walk into the area where
sensitive equipment is being used, and I attempt to use my cellphone, or
VHF/UHF handi-talkie, just transmitting may upset the equipment.  Now, most
users will get the annoying 'no service' or whatever message, and so will
most likely move 10 feet one direction or the other and attempt it again,
causing another transmission.  Cell phones will continue to attempt to find
a open cell for a period of time then display the 'no servive found' or
whatever message.  Same thing with 2way radios.  If you have a hard time
making contact, you move till you can.

In either case, this still causes a transmission.  Its the transmission of
RF that is the problem, not the blocking of reception or transmission all
together.  In secure enviroments, the purpose is to block sending and
recieving, not so much as keeping transmitters from....transmitting.  Same
thing with theaters and such.

So this problem is compounded by the fact that hospitals now use alot of
wireless data collection and monitoring. So do stores.  Take a look at the
ceilings.  You might find a bunch of antennas (seen UHF ducks to cell like
devices).


So the problem is really on the equipment to protect itself from RF if
possible.  Expensive.  But if its a life support type device, the cost is
worth it right?  Or do the BBC trick....look for oscillators when the people
pass thru the enterance. Wait....now that affects pagers....*sigh*

I suppose...it comes down to a sign.  Please turn off your cell phones and 2
way radios.  Life support of who you are visiting may be affected.

1998\11\16@153720 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Harrison Cooper wrote:

> Just thinking about this a bit further.....
>
> Most 'suggestions' on this are about blocking the use, or annoying the user
> so he doesn't use it.  The basic problem is, that I walk into the area where
> sensitive equipment is being used, and I attempt to use my cellphone, or
> VHF/UHF handi-talkie, just transmitting may upset the equipment.  Now, most
> users will get the annoying 'no service' or whatever message, and so will
> most likely move 10 feet one direction or the other and attempt it again,
> causing another transmission.  Cell phones will continue to attempt to find
> a open cell for a period of time then display the 'no servive found' or
> whatever message.  Same thing with 2way radios.  If you have a hard time
> making contact, you move till you can.

The trick with digital service phones is, they don't transmit at all until
they have an OK from a tower. For as long as you see a 'no service'
message, nothing goes out. I don't know about analog, but I suspect it is
the same.

Peter

1998\11\16@153728 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
The problem, and the place to solve it, is in the equipment. Life
support equipment should be designed with this sort of thing in mind.
Hospital personell carry radios, and many devices transmit at some power
level.
It's of course cheaper to leave the shielding out, and blame the problem
on someone else.

This is actually a much broader problem, there are endless stories in
the EMC community of medical equipment interfering with each other. A
jammer transmitter is just another source of RFI that you don't need, in
addidition to being screamingly illegal.

It would be possible for cellphone mfgrs to add the ability to shut down
the phones with a "restricted service" message, when they hear a
specific signal. The hospital could then use very low power transmitters
to send the "deny code", and they would be a lot less powerful than what
would be required to jam.. This has huge possibilities for pranksters
though.

1998\11\16@154133 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>service'. This may even be legal in places where spread spectrum 900 MHz
>is legal, as there is no law about how to spread the spectrum, exactly (?)
><G>.

Actually, I think there is something somewhere about the hopping.

Andy


==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\16@154319 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Harrison Cooper wrote:
> <snipped>
> I suppose...it comes down to a sign.  Please turn off your cell phones and 2
> way radios.  Life support of who you are visiting may be affected.

 Education could help, also (Why - I've always wondered - is there no
requirement for any sort of safety education before someone gets a Cell
Phone?  Deregulate, yep, but only when doing so is SAFE...  The industry
could do better here.)

 Having seen handheld radios cause 2 (at least) wheelchairs to decide
to drive around on their own - "Look Ma, no hands!", and cell phones do
the same, I know it's a problem for a few more cases than hospital
electronics.  Obviously those electronics "should" be shielded pretty
well, as someone could get seriously hurt!  But - they're not.

 (And I'd support making it mandatory for a driver to use a headset, or
other hands-free rig, or be required to park, as I've been darn near run
over too often by cell phone users who're holding the phone with one
hand and gesturing with the other, and paying NO attention to the road,
in heavy traffic...  I guess eventually those twits will not be driving
any more, but they'll hurt someone in the process.)

 The real problems are stupidity, lack of understanding/courtesy, also
the differences in peoples' voices (My voice carries really well, it's
fairly deep & I have to pay attention in hospitals & etc.  Some people
can talk loud without it carrying as well), and greed (Hospitals don't
need to be money-making places, they need to be places doing a good job
of helping people HEAL, dangit!  I don't mind them making money in the
process, but some of them need to get & keep their priorities straight!)

 We can't make stupidity illegal <G>  We can educate, and work on
health care systems to make them serve us better...  And I imagine if
someone were cited for attempted murder & that case publicised in the
media, THAT might help some people get a clue?  (Though it's not illegal
to do something that has a low chance of causing someone's death,
sometimes at least, but a civil "wrongful death" suit would pose a nasty
threat, some good education potential {though in so *negative* a
manner!}, there...)

 I worked on a project which was about detecting cell phone locations,
I suspect the cell phone service providers could probably set up a "No
Service" zone in & around the hospital if laws were created to cause
this to be mandated;  Have to re-program existing cell phones, though.
Something like the Locust idea (Little IR transmitters that send
low-power IR signals as localizer beacons) could be used both for "you
cannot transmit here" purposes, and/or for "You can transmit here"
purposes here, in the near-hospital areas...  (See
http://wearables.http://www.media.mit.edu/projects/wearables/locust/ for
details on these.)  Rig the IR sensor so it won't work unless there's
some ambient IR, so an "accidentally" misplaced finger won't disable
this feature <G>

 Mark, mwillisspamKILLspamnwlink.com

1998\11\16@154323 by goflo

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
> BTW an anti-cellular thingy would
> be high on the wish lists of some other places too, such as public
> libraries, restaurants and some bars. It could be quite a product.

Jamming is illegal most places, but what about a device which screams
a "Hey! Get your head outa your ass!" in the ear of the numerous idiots
engrossed in quality-time phone blather while their 2-1/2 ton sport ute
bears down on you...
Dodging these morons a daily occurence anymore.

Jack

1998\11\16@154523 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
Sean Breheny <.....shb7KILLspamspam.....CORNELL.EDU> asked:
> Gee, I'm just wondering why a hospital would want to stop cell phones? My

Andy Kunz <EraseMEmtdesignspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTFAST.NET> wrote:
> Because they interfere with in-building paging, for one thing.

Is that because of poor design of the in-building paging, or of the
cell phones?

1998\11\16@160905 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 goflospamspam_OUTpacbell.net wrote:

> Peter L. Peres wrote:
> > BTW an anti-cellular thingy would
> > be high on the wish lists of some other places too, such as public
> > libraries, restaurants and some bars. It could be quite a product.
>
> Jamming is illegal most places, but what about a device which screams
> a "Hey! Get your head outa your ass!" in the ear of the numerous idiots
> engrossed in quality-time phone blather while their 2-1/2 ton sport ute
> bears down on you...
> Dodging these morons a daily occurence anymore.

Mmh. That thing I did that detects cellular phone's radiation to mute the
radio could be adapted to cut the ECU out and actuate the air brakes
simultaneoulsy ;) Perhaps also the airbags, just to get the message
through ;) ;)

Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular in a
car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of the
interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why. Nothing will
happen for most people but I can quite see an overland truck's custom
modified electronics starting to act strange at 120 km/h when the driver
picks up his cellular to talk on a busy road.

I am sure that the manufacturers have thought of it, but nevertheless,
I'll try to run a 100W ham Tx in an older car with CAN bus some day ;)
Wonder what happens when the transmatch is de-tuned towards 2:1 <G>.

If the government(s) would get serious about this, they could make such a
detector device mandatory in a car, just like the airbag. If you use a
handsfree set, the antenna is outside, you're ok. You try to use the
cellular inside, you get a warning, then the engine quits, or something
like that. Now, how do you handle VIPs celling from the back seat, cab
fares and more ? There is the question, to PIC or not to PIC.

This is a PIC project imho, as it requires some analysis of the raw pulses
recovered by the receiver (no, it does not read the data stream, just
makes sure that the amplitude, duration and frequency of a Tx burst is
about right for cellular service Tx). I used a simple monostable (missing
pulse detector) then but this can be improved (read: PICed).

Peter

1998\11\16@185813 by Mark

flavicon
face
> Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
> engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
> know that there are solutions, but how to make?

I'm not sure why you'd want to do this but I suspect that there are
enough legal issues between the idea and it's implementation that
it's not even worth discussing the technical issues....



Mark Hillier
President, HVW Technologies
@spam@MarkKILLspamspamHVWTech.com
Tel:(403)730-8603 Fax:(403)730-8903
Visit our web site: http://www.hvwtech.com

1998\11\17@033244 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

it is very interesting what you wrote but I experienced the same also in
lifts. However, subway stop cellulars. Maybe the hospital should be also
hidden into the earth?

On the other hand, I am very interested for your cellular detector. Could
you post it?

Imre

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Peter L. Peres wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\11\17@045433 by wwl

picon face
>Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular in a
>car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of the
>interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why.
This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone at
high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.

1998\11\17@091005 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Andy Kunz <KILLspammtdesignKILLspamspamFAST.NET> wrote:
>> Because they interfere with in-building paging, for one thing.
>
>Is that because of poor design of the in-building paging, or of the
>cell phones?

Good communications can be ruined by other good devices.

You don't think we flew EF-111's in Iraq for the fun of it, do you?

Andy

==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\17@100155 by Brian Striggow

flavicon
face
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Peter L. Peres wrote:
>
> Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular in a
> car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of the
>
Back to my paramedic experience.  In the mid/late 80's we received a
chevy ambulance w/ a myriad of electronic vehicle systems.  When we keyed
the two-way radio (VHF 100W feeding base loaded 5/8wave whip on vehicle
roof) the following would occur:

a. The speedometer needle would drop to 0
b. The windshield wipers would come on.
c. The transmission would shift into neutral

It took some bickering w/ the local dealer, but when the problem got
back to the 'right people', it was easily resolved w/ a suppression kit
that was issued free for problem cases.

A Motorola Engineer told me at the time that the car companys were totally
disinterested in addressing these problems, until it was realized that a
two-way radio could trigger the anti-lock braking system in a nearby vehicle
on the highway.

On the other side of the coin, I saw a low-band (I think about 40Mhz or
so) radio whose receive frequency was dead on an odd order harmonic of
the crystal for the digital speedometer.  Chevy put in a new instrument
package which resolved the problem.  I don't know if there was a
specifically different clock frequency in the new unit or inter-unit
variability solved the problem

bcs

1998\11\17@121602 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Mike Harrison wrote:

> >Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular in a
> >car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of the
> >interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why.
> This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone at
> high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
> received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
> segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
> phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.

Actually GA seems to use cellular phones in small aircraft in the USA,
from what I see on USENET. It also looks like a valuable emergency gear.
(Hello ? Fire station ? I'm in the aircraft diving above you, can you
please come extinguish it in the next field to the East ?).

Peter

1998\11\17@122610 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

> Hi,
>
> it is very interesting what you wrote but I experienced the same also in
> lifts. However, subway stop cellulars. Maybe the hospital should be also
> hidden into the earth?
>
> On the other hand, I am very interested for your cellular detector. Could
> you post it?

Imre

 I am not giving past projects away. I own a lot of ideas and I have new
ones all the time but I do not **** ex clients. Never. I also do not mix
my hobbies with production stuff, however close they may seme to be to
each other. If you are interested in the detector technology, in this
context, then please contact me privately.

regards,

Peter

1998\11\17@123233 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
>> Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular
>> in a car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think
>> of the interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why.

> This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone
> at high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
> received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
> segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
> phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.

Correct.  It has to do with the antenna's altitude.  And it's not
just _using_ them from aircraft.  Since the cellular phones chat
with cell sites even when no call is in progress, the phones are
supposed to be switched off.
                                               Lee

1998\11\17@142359 by gwaiche

picon face
Hi!

There is a french inventor who designed a
device that is able to stop cell phones.

The device waits for the signals coming
from the closest emmiter. When the emmiter
sends an identification request, it answers it
with bulshits faster than the phone can do.
Hence, the phone can't be identified and the incoming
phone call won't come through. I think it can
prevent people to use their phone in the zone
affectded by the device using the same jaming
principle. The device is clever enough to allow
the usual emergency calls to get through.

The device is aimed for churches, hospitals...

Gael


Mike Harrison wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\11\17@221034 by Russell McMahon

picon face
This is, of course, what EMC compliance is meant to solve. Both
radiated/conducted emissions AND susceptibility to them is regulated
so that if both ends meet spec there SHOULD be no such problems.
Murphy is, however, of course, alive and well.

   Russell

From: Brian Striggow <RemoveMEstriggbTakeThisOuTspamBAE.UGA.EDU>
>Back to my paramedic experience.  In the mid/late 80's we received a
>chevy ambulance w/ a myriad of electronic vehicle systems.  When we
keyed
>the two-way radio (VHF 100W feeding base loaded 5/8wave whip on
vehicle
>roof) the following would occur:
>
>a. The speedometer needle would drop to 0
>b. The windshield wipers would come on.
>c. The transmission would shift into neutral

1998\11\18@105730 by Roger Morella

flavicon
face
Since jamming cell phone transmissions is illegal, not to mention impractical, I
would suggest a more non technical approach.

Place signs all over the hospital which explain that cell phone usage is not
allowed in the hospital and direct people to an area which is acceptable.

Tell the hospital staff to inform anyone with a cell phone of the hospital
policy.  Have security confiscate the cell phones of those that ignore the polic
y.

You may be able to place sensors at the entrances and in sensitive areas of the
hospital that sense the presence of cell phones and announce a message to turn o
ff
the phones when people enter the building.  I don't know how practical this is,
though.

Good luck,
        Roger

spamBeGoneSpk41qspamBeGonespamAOL.COM wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Excuse me for a question except subject (perhaps not?), but like there are HF
> engineers among you, a hospital would wish to block the portable telephones. I
> know that there are solutions, but how to make?
>
> Cordially,
> Dan

1998\11\18@114125 by Tom Handley

picon face
  Lee, here in NW USA, mountain climbers often carry cell phones. It has
saved lives in some cases. Mt Hood is 11,500ft and several just North in
Washington are taller. I've never heard of any problems, legally or
technically.

  - Tom

At 09:29 AM 11/17/98 -0800, Lee Jones wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\11\18@121838 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> Tell the hospital staff to inform anyone with a cell phone of the hospital
> policy.  Have security confiscate the cell phones of those that ignore the pol
icy.
>

Can I then confiscate "security"s handy-talkie? (usually 5W or so, VHF,
UHF, or 800 Mhz as opposed to my MAX 0.6W 850 Mhz phone)

Has anyone noticed the number of transmitters carried around by the
various security and maintainance people? Why do we think that this
isn't part of the problem?... The paging systems, usually located on the
hospital roof, operate at high power levels, and are infamous for
causing intermod and EMI problems..

Why is there this apparently universal approach, to blame cell phones
for every type of problem imaginable?

1998\11\18@124944 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Why is there this apparently universal approach, to blame cell phones
>for every type of problem imaginable?

Because the unknown is responsible for everything.  Let's all take the
Luddite approach <G>

Andy


==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Statistical Research, Inc. - Westfield, New Jersey USA
==================================================================

1998\11\18@172533 by Brian Striggow

flavicon
face
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Tom Handley wrote:

>    Lee, here in NW USA, mountain climbers often carry cell phones. It has
> saved lives in some cases. Mt Hood is 11,500ft and several just North in
> Washington are taller. I've never heard of any problems, legally or
> technically.
>
I did read one article, though, where rescue workers were complaining
that hikers would decide, in reaction to the potential for changes in the
weather, to carry a cellphone instead of a parka.  Much lighter.

1998\11\18@173554 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
In 1993 a woman called 911 from the top of Half Dome using her cellular
phone.  According to dispatch, she reported: "Well, I'm at the top and
I'm really tired." The answering ranger asked if she felt sick. "No,"
she said, "I'm just really tired and I want my friends to drive to the
base and pick me up."The dispatcher explained that she would have to
hike down the trail she had ascended. The visitor replied, "But you
don't understand, I'm really tired."  What happened next?  "It turned
out we got really lucky," the ranger said,"her phone battery died."


In 1994, a woman visiting from the Bay Area embarked on a solo hike to
the summit of El Capitan in Yosemite. When she became lost and saw a
storm brewing, she called 911 from her cellular phone and asked to be
rescued.  A helicopter found her barely off the trail and one-fourth to
half a mile from the top of El Cap. When the 'copter lifted off and the
woman saw how close she was to her summit goal, she asked the crew to
set her down on top.  When the crew declined, she threatened to sue them
for kidnapping.

:-)
BillW

1998\11\20@214909 by Mark A Moss

picon face
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:53:41 GMT Mike Harrison <TakeThisOuTwwlEraseMEspamspam_OUTnetcomuk.co.uk>
writes:
>>Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular
>ina
>>car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of
>the
>>interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why.
>This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone at
>high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
>received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
>segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
>phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.
>

Actually, in the US at least, it is perfectly legal to use any RF device
in a private aircraft as long as you have the pilot/owner/operator
permission and do not cause harmful interference to other radio services.


Mark Moss
Amateur Radio Operator, Technician, and General Tinkerer

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

1998\11\21@083605 by wwl

picon face
On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:38:09 +0000, you wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:53:41 GMT Mike Harrison <RemoveMEwwlspamTakeThisOuTnetcomuk.co.uk>
>writes:
>>>Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a cellular
>>ina
>>>car full of electronics while driving is a pretty bad idea. Think of
>>the
>>>interdiction to do that in a plane and you'll know why.
>>This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone at
>>high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
>>received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
>>segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
>>phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.
>>
>
>Actually, in the US at least, it is perfectly legal to use any RF device
>in a private aircraft as long as you have the pilot/owner/operator
>permission and do not cause harmful interference to other radio services.
>
It's illegal in the UK - this is stated in cellphone user manuals.

1998\11\22@113406 by Tom Handley

picon face
  Hahahah! Well Bill, it just goes to show you that you need to keep
those California folks off of your mountains. Lord knows we tried ;-)

  - Tom

At 02:34 PM 11/18/98 PST, William Chops Westfield wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\11\23@182650 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
>>> Really, I think that people should realize that talking on a
>>> cellular in a car full of electronics while driving is a
>>> pretty bad idea. Think of the interdiction to do that in a
>>> plane and you'll know why.

Lee Jones wrote:

>> This is not entirely due to interference issues - using a cellphone
>> at high altitude can screw up the network as transmissions can be
>> received at much longer ranges than on the ground, disrupting the
>> segregation of the cellular system. I suspect it's illegal to use
>> phone in any aircraft, including gliders and balloons for this reason.

Mark Moss wrote:

> Actually, in the US at least, it is perfectly legal to use any RF device
> in a private aircraft as long as you have the pilot/owner/operator
> permission and do not cause harmful interference to other radio services.

This is wrong -- because of your use of the word "any".

It's mostly right.  The relevant section of the FARs (Federal
Aviation Regulations) is 91.21 [complete copy at end of message].
There is nothing in it about cellular telephones.  And cellular
phone operation in aircraft is handy and legal _on the ground_.

Paragraph (b)(5) of 91.21 is the exemption allowing operation of
most devices if approved by the pilot in command.  I suspect this
is what you used as the basis of your statement.


However, cellular phone operation aboard an aircraft is explicitly
prohibited by FCC (Federal Communications Commission) rules.  See
47 CFR 22.925 (CFR = Code of Federal Regulations) as follows:


TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart H--Cellular Radiotelephone Service

Sec. 22.925  Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

   Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes,
   balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such
   aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft
   leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must
   be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each
   cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
   ``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is
   prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in
   suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones
   while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''


I use http://www.law.cornell.edu as a good starting point for
entry to United States legal documentation.

                                               Lee Jones
                                               ke6wmk & pilot

full text of 14 CFR 91.21:

TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General

Sec. 91.21  Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the
following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
   (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
       certificate or an operating certificate; or
   (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
   (1) Portable voice recorders;
   (2) Hearing aids;
   (3) Heart pacemakers;
   (4) Electric shavers; or
   (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
       the aircraft has determined will not cause interference
       with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft
       on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
   operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
   required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
   operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used.
   In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the
   pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

/* end */

1998\11\23@183059 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> Mark Moss wrote:
>
> > Actually, in the US at least, it is perfectly legal to use any RF device
> > in a private aircraft as long as you have the pilot/owner/operator
> > permission and do not cause harmful interference to other radio services.
>

Wrong point of view.. The pilot can BAN any device, and some devices can
only be operated with his specific permission. He can't wave a magic
wand and make something "legal"..

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...