RE: RE: RE: Spank? Well sort of..but funny (jammers)

From: Mike Gibbons (gibbons@fn.net)
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 21:26:44 EDT


Don't mean to ruin the party, but any device (read that jammer) that emits
a radio signal ( whether they "force" a number or merely "confuse" the
radar unit) without express consent of the FCC is violating federal law. If
I am wrong please correct me, but from my exposure to aviation
communications, avionics and radar, I don't believe there is a truly
effective radar jamming device available to the general public. It's just
my opinion, but I feel anyone who has one one these devices and not been
caught is living on borrowed time. A radar detector and jammer, by their
very nature, could not even work in close proximity to one another. The
jammer is to emit a signal on a particular freq., the detector is to detect
a signal on a particulat freq. The jammer would be setting off the detector
constantly!!!

Mike G.

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:44:04 -0500
From: "Bernd D. Ratsch" <bernd@texas.net>
Subject: Re: DML: RE: RE: RE: Spank? Well sort of..but funny

It depends on the VG2 "Stealth" circuitry and how the manufacturer(s)
designed them. So far, I have only had a few looks from the troopers
(blank stares) when the jammer went off and as I was passing them.

The "Illegal" jammers are the ones that force a number on their radar
guns/devices. The ones that just "mix" a signal with noise (producing no
reading) are what seems to be the choice these days. (Also one that I
use.)

So far, no tickets but a few close calls...thank god for my Phantom
Detector/Jammer. ;)

- - Bernd



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:17:20 EDT