Re: Detecting IEDs...
- From: Randy Poe <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:40:37 -0700
On Nov 2, 12:35 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:jabmi3177512u36l2bg5vvdbkvct5258rv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:27:39 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:y%SVi.162029$Xa3.144835@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/gps_jam-pics.html
o Operating Range - 150-200 km
o Output Power - 4 W
"THE GPS/GLONASS JAMMER HAS AN OUTPUT POWER OF 4 WATTS AND CAN
EFFECTIVELY DENY USE OF GPS IN AN AREA RANGING AS FAR AS 150-200
KM".
Sammy! Sammy!
Why do you get all bent out of shape
Hey Pal, I ain't bent outta shape--Furthermore, *you*, Potter, might
do some self education *before* you spew your misunderstood
assertions.
Sammy! Sammy!
Don't get all excited, and "spew your" venom.
After thinking about it,
maybe it is good that you "spew your" venom
as that might calm you down,
and keep you from getting a stroke.
I just don't want you to
invest all the money you get from Google Ad Sense
clicks on your "edu" web page
on some Russian scam.
I bet that Russian "spoofer"
( It is NOT a "jammer". ) could
"EFFECTIVELY DENY USE OF GPS"
as far away a several light years,
if a good RADAR duct existed.
I will be looking forward to seeing my pal Sammy,
correct "spew" by rationally examining the "spew"
rather than irrationally attacking the "spewer".
Your pal,Detecting IED's is a very serious topic and you two have polluted it
by arguing about jamming GPS systems. What do GPS systems have to do
with IED's?
We should all be straining our brains to think of a counter measure to
the IED, but nobody is going to read this overly long harangue more
than once, when they find out it's way OFF TOPIC.
How can we frustrate the IED's?
One suggestion might be for the cell tower be notified of the
explosion and quickly (using a simple cache system) store all the
current phone numbers, to provide a clue to the one sending the
message. Something, anything.
As I posted in my first post to this thread:
============================
"A system to prevent cellphone activated IEDs would need to:
1. Monitor all cell phone spectrum signals in the area.
2. Find ALL of the Barker Code headers (By cross-correlating).
3. Generate and retransmit signals on ALL of the signals
that override the data trailing the Barker Code,
so that the IED would not know that it was being sent
a signal to detonate.
And all this would have to be done fast enough
to prevent ONE detonation signal from getting through.
And you're incorrect. There are devices designed
for this purpose which do not have to go through
all this rigmarole.
Do a web search if you're curious, instead
of making stuff up. Try "IED jammer".
(67,900 links found).
- Randy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Detecting IEDs...
- From: Tom Potter
- Re: Detecting IEDs...
- References:
- Re: Detecting IEDs...
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: Detecting IEDs...
- From: Tom Potter
- Re: Detecting IEDs...
- Prev by Date: Re: Detecting IEDs...
- Next by Date: Re: How do the brain neurons compute?
- Previous by thread: Re: Detecting IEDs...
- Next by thread: Re: Detecting IEDs...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading