police
LEGEND
DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
Steve La Joie
>
>
>
> DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
> TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
>
Opps. Sorry, just realized you're from Fiji.
Steve La Joie
>
>
>
> DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
> TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
>
Yeah.
But the fine for illegal radios transmissions is
something like $50,000 and it's a federal offense.
And if they can show it was used specifically for
criminal intent, it can go higher and include
a year or so of jail time. In short, if the cop
fixes you with a radar and finds he's been
jammed, he knows who you are and the penalty is
a lot worse than speeding. Now you have to deal
with the FCC!
I understand some Harrier jump jet did it to
a cop in England a while back. The cop thought
he had a fix on a car but really had the harrier.
The harrier registered a radar lock and started
ECM, frying the radar gun. The cop got off easy,
the pilot figured he was a terrorist and would
have blasted him had he had a radar seeking
missile.
Pat Ford
> LEGEND wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
> > TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
> >
>
> Yeah.
>
> But the fine for illegal radios transmissions is
> something like $50,000 and it's a federal offense.
> And if they can show it was used specifically for
> criminal intent, it can go higher and include
> a year or so of jail time. In short, if the cop
> fixes you with a radar and finds he's been
> jammed, he knows who you are and the penalty is
> a lot worse than speeding. Now you have to deal
> with the FCC!
>
bummer eh? I've always thought that radar impinges
on your right to freedom form arbiturary (sp?) search.
> I understand some Harrier jump jet did it to
> a cop in England a while back. The cop thought
> he had a fix on a car but really had the harrier.
> The harrier registered a radar lock and started
> ECM, frying the radar gun. The cop got off easy,
> the pilot figured he was a terrorist and would
> have blasted him had he had a radar seeking
> missile.
>
what about a gunn diode fed from a pink noise generator?
(the poster isn't from the states)
--
Pat Ford email: pf...@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
Randy Eubanks
Weyoun7
you get one.
But be safe and drive the speed limit, cause even if the radar and laser
detecters are jammed they often scout with an air unit and massure how fast it
takes for you to go from point A to point B and bamm you're nailed and
rightfully so! After all you were speeding! =)
Ciao,
-Justin R.
http://members.tripod.com/RoBoJRR
Pat Ford
> No but you can buy one for $150 and the maker says they will pay your ticket if
> you get one.
>
> But be safe and drive the speed limit,
Everyday I drive 150 Km ( ~ 80-90 mile) each way to work and back
(ever in winter bizzards), often at 1.5 * speed limit ( on open hiways not city
driving). Not one speeding ticket in over 10 years, only 2 agricultural excursions.
Both excursions were due to others incompetence, or unsafe vehicles. the first
rubarb expedition was 15 cm snow on the road and a camaro in the oncomming lane
spun at me, I was doing 90Kph, had four snow tires and went into the ditch, drove out.
The camaro ended up where it should be in the hay, his tires, 10" (~25cm) slicks
on the back and 4" (10cm) wide tires on the front.
the second time was do to a guy who was trying to slingshot past my in 6" wet
snow, he couldn't get out of my tracks and tapped me, starting a spin.
speed doesn't kill morons and unsafe cars do
> cause even if the radar and laser
> detecters are jammed they often scout with an air unit and massure how fast it
> takes for you to go from point A to point B and bamm you're nailed and
> rightfully so!
around here the cop tend to hid in trees and radio ahead to their buddies down the
road
> After all you were speeding! =)
the speed limits were put inplace with huge old land yatchs in mind, I think
it's time to update the limits for todays cars. Or do a graduated license
where if you can prove competence above the lowwest common denominator, you
can drive faster ( ie have a speed rating on your licnse AND your car you can
only go as fast as the lowwer limit)
most of the accidents I see are from :
1) morons who driving unsafely (aggressively)
2) men in hats, wheel biters who exercise their god given right to
leave their cars in firstgear one a hiway
3) average people who don't pay attention and drift to the shoulders
then overcorrect to the other should
4) young drivers who misjudge things
when I'm doing 140 in a 80 you can better your ass I'm paying attention
to the road, shoulders, and other cars
>
> Ciao,
> -Justin R.
> http://members.tripod.com/RoBoJRR
>
Soory for the rant but this is a MAJOR sore point for me
Christian G. Taranti
Weyoun7 wrote:
> No but you can buy one for $150 and the maker says they will pay your ticket if
> you get one.
>
> But be safe and drive the speed limit, cause even if the radar and laser
> detecters are jammed they often scout with an air unit and massure how fast it
> takes for you to go from point A to point B and bamm you're nailed and
> rightfully so! After all you were speeding! =)
>
And the best of all is that he is paying taxes for the ploice to ensure safety on
the roads...
Christian
Bob
Pat Ford wrote in message ...
...
>most of the accidents I see are from :
>1) morons who driving unsafely (aggressively)
>2) men in hats, wheel biters who exercise their god given right to
> leave their cars in firstgear one a hiway
>3) average people who don't pay attention and drift to the shoulders
> then overcorrect to the other should
>4) young drivers who misjudge things
>
You missed the people with cell phones trying to talk and shuffle through
their breifcases at the same time as their cars waver from one side of the
road to the other.
And don't forget those who are trying to read a newspaper or a book while
driving cause actually paying attention to the road is far too boring.
Bob
Bart
Bob wrote in message <7n81hb$98o$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
But... but... that's why speeding is illegal. I think it is feasible to
include a high speed driver in with the "morons". They don't give
themselves time to react to other people's mistakes - and they scare the
shit out of other people with their sudden presence. There have been a
great number of people who claim to have received no tickets or had any
accidents during their years of driving at high rates of speed. Every year,
someone who use to say that, cannot say that any more - and somebody dies.
It only takes a second to take a life with the stupidity of high speed
driving.
I use to drive about 40,000 miles per year - and yes, I did, at one time,
drive almost twice the speed limit. But I saw far too many wrecks caused by
this type of driving, so I slowed down - realizing that I was one of the
morons. Driving is about getting safely to your destination - it's not
about how many morons cross your path along the way.
Bart
Christian G. Taranti
Energy=0.5*mass*velocity^2!!
Add 50% to the velocity and the energy will be added by 125%!!!
Rolling with your car at 55mph (80km/h) is one thing. Doing that at 80mph
(130km/h) is another...
I prefer to be safe. I'm alive (even after gettin a goo accident on a road - NO
injury), and I plan to no die on the road...
Christian
Pat Ford
>
> Pat Ford wrote in message ...
> ...
> >most of the accidents I see are from :
> >1) morons who driving unsafely (aggressively)
> >2) men in hats, wheel biters who exercise their god given right to
> > leave their cars in firstgear one a hiway
> >3) average people who don't pay attention and drift to the shoulders
> > then overcorrect to the other should
> >4) young drivers who misjudge things
> >
>
>
> You missed the people with cell phones trying to talk and shuffle through
> their breifcases at the same time as their cars waver from one side of the
> road to the other.
DOOH
>
> And don't forget those who are trying to read a newspaper or a book while
> driving cause actually paying attention to the road is far too boring.
DOOH
>
> Bob
It's a shame that we as a society are hell bent on bypassing darwinian evolution
( I'm not supporting eugenics, just some people are too dumb)
Steve La Joie
> It's a shame that we as a society are hell bent on bypassing darwinian evolution
> ( I'm not supporting eugenics, just some people are too dumb)
Inspiring words. Almost makes me want to go and write a book
about a alien race that gets so obsesed with taking care of their
stupid people that natual selection puts them all back in the
trees as cheetah food.
In industriallized societies, intelligence is selected against.
John Mianowski
your windshield (like dingle balls) - front & back, & off
any antennas you have. You might have to fiddle a
bit with the length & width of the strips, depending on
what radar frequencies your local constabulary uses.
Start with about 2' long by 3" wide - that covers most of
the common radar bands.
Note: This won't help with laser or VASCAR systems.
I admit it sounds goofy, but I guarantee it works! I can
explain the science behind it by e-mail, but it would
take too much space for this newsgroup.
Happy speeding!
JM
In article <b66uFti1BY3z@usp>,
s970...@student.usp.ac.fj says...
>
>
> DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
> TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
>
>
--
SPAM Deflector: Remove the underscore from my address to
send me e-mail.
JimT9999
>> TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
>
Try going slower
Richard Steven Walz
Steve Maughan <Steve....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Steve La Joie wrote:
>
>> LEGEND wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO BUILD A RADAR JAMMING DEVICE
>> > TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
>> >
>>
>>
>> But the fine for illegal radios transmissions is
>> something like $50,000 and it's a federal offense.
>> And if they can show it was used specifically for
>> criminal intent, it can go higher and include
>> a year or so of jail time. In short, if the cop
>> fixes you with a radar and finds he's been
>> jammed, he knows who you are and the penalty is
>> a lot worse than speeding. Now you have to deal
>> with the FCC!
>>
>> a cop in England a while back. The cop thought
>> he had a fix on a car but really had the harrier.
>> The harrier registered a radar lock and started
>> ECM, frying the radar gun. The cop got off easy,
>> the pilot figured he was a terrorist and would
>> have blasted him had he had a radar seeking
>> missile.
>
>a policeman was on speeding duty, checking people speed with his *radar*
>speed gun. He was bored and saw a tornado fly overhead. He pointed the
>radar gun at the tornado and fired it. The tornado picked the signal up
>as a missile lock and the auto systems started the ECM system
>(Electronic Counter Measure). That send out a very powerful radio pulse
>which blew up the radar gun, and sent sparks and melted plastic all over
>the policemans hand and car...
>--
>Steve Maughan
----------------------------
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an urban legend, since you would
have to be inside 100 feet of the front of a fighter-jet radar to obtain
anything close to that effect, and it falls off VERY fast at a distance.
ECM is jamming and confusing, not attack via EMP, which is not do-able
at any distance without a nuclear bomb. So much for comic books...
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe Naples Italy: http://ftp.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
Gary Croll
> > > TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
> > >
> >
Check back issues of Popular Electronics and Radio and Electronics. One of
them ran a construction article on this very subject within the last 8 years
or so.
The construction article was for an X band unit if memory serves correctly,
(10 Ghz).
This only works if you know what frequency you are being painted with. The
idea is that when a radar signal is being detected it triggers your
transmitter which is modulated at a frequency that translates to a pre-set
speed regardless of how fast you are going. It doesn't actually jam the
radar, mearly gives it a false reading.
As far as the legalities, low powered microwave transmitters are perfectly
legal under Part 95 and I can name a dozen different places where you can
find them in consumer products. The question becomes whether your operation
of that transmitter is illegal. Even though I am a member of the Sheriff's
department, I am not an attorney. I do know that as a ham operator, I cannot
intentionally cause interference and that is exactly what I would be doing.
Good luck,
Tim & Gina Woodburn
Richard Steven Walz <mailto:rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:Bbqs3.2125$lL2.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
> In article <37B1E55B...@bigfoot.com>,
> Steve Maughan <Steve....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Steve La Joie wrote:
> >
> >> LEGEND wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > TO STOP POLICE FROM READING THE SPEED OF THE CAR.
> >> >
> >>
Policeman transmits microwave radiation (at a frequency, PRF etc. of
military radar) at Tornado, ECM system determines this is a threat and blats
out muchos microwave from the wing pod. In fact enough RF to confuse radar
systems much farther away.
Policeman's little radar gun stops transmitting from his battery powered
radar gun because its expecting quite a small signal back from the echo - mm
large amplification involved here. BLAT!! *LOTS* more RF than we were
expecting....fizz pop!
I think its quite conceivable that the ECM system ruined the receiver
although melted plastic seems a bit unlikely.
Tim
Steve La Joie
[snip]
> Policeman transmits microwave radiation (at a frequency, PRF etc. of
> military radar) at Tornado, ECM system determines this is a threat and blats
> out muchos microwave from the wing pod. In fact enough RF to confuse radar
> systems much farther away.
>
> Policeman's little radar gun stops transmitting from his battery powered
> radar gun because its expecting quite a small signal back from the echo - mm
> large amplification involved here. BLAT!! *LOTS* more RF than we were
> expecting....fizz pop!
Exactly.
> I think its quite conceivable that the ECM system ruined the receiver
> although melted plastic seems a bit unlikely.
Depends on how it fails. I watched a guy fry a spectrum analyzer and a
VHF attenuator because he didn't realize the concept of "power". He was
putting in much more than the rated power, but not that much really.
I told him his attenuator stank of smoke and that the reason why the
HP spectrum analyzer was blank could be due to the large bubble of
melted plastic on it's top.
I don't think the VHF energy melted the SA, it was probably a
semiconductor
failure by short to ground and the power supply being taken out by a
large current draw.
> Tim
Steve La Joie
Interesting.
> >Steve Maughan
> ----------------------------
> Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an urban legend,
You decided that, huh? :-)
> since you would
> have to be inside 100 feet of the front of a fighter-jet radar to obtain
> anything close to that effect,
Uh, not really.
> and it falls off VERY fast at a distance.
Nope. We're talking about phased arrays, you know. Not
exactly 1/r^2 fall offs here.
> ECM is jamming and confusing, not attack via EMP, which is not do-able
> at any distance without a nuclear bomb.
Lightning is a good example of a natal EMP.
You would be surprised.
The intent was to jamb, but you must keep in mind that the kind
of radar the police used is not designed to be survivable in an
electronic warfare environment. I find it quite believable that
it got fried. They are hardly hardened.
> So much for comic books...
So much for Aristotelian philosophical views on science.
Jerry Petrey
>
> news:Bbqs3.2125$lL2.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
> > >Steve Maughan
> > ----------------------------
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but this is an urban legend, since you would
> > have to be inside 100 feet of the front of a fighter-jet radar to obtain
> > ECM is jamming and confusing, not attack via EMP, which is not do-able
> > -Steve
>
> Policeman transmits microwave radiation (at a frequency, PRF etc. of
> military radar) at Tornado, ECM system determines this is a threat and blats
> out muchos microwave from the wing pod. In fact enough RF to confuse radar
> systems much farther away.
>
> Policeman's little radar gun stops transmitting from his battery powered
> radar gun because its expecting quite a small signal back from the echo - mm
> large amplification involved here. BLAT!! *LOTS* more RF than we were
> expecting....fizz pop!
>
> although melted plastic seems a bit unlikely.
>
Highly unlikely unless the Tornado was doing a very low level pass over
the police car.
Jerry
--
=====================================================================
= Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer - Member Team Ada =
= Lockheed Martin Member Team Forth =
=====================================================================
Steve
No. At that far in front of the plane, well over 2000 feet or more even
if the tornado was in a crash dive, given the inverse square law, even
if a dish is used, we are talking signal level voltages, not power level
induced voltages. ECM confuses, it doesn't "blow up" things. I wish
idiot adolescents didn't amplify their fantasies so repeatably.
Again. Urban Legend.
Tim & Gina Woodburn
Steve <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:37B522...@armory.com...
For the record the tornado ECM system - Skyshadow is located in a wing pod.
Yes I am well aware how ECM works and I am well aware that the intention is
not to blow up the enemies avionics. That would be a pointless exercise
since it is easy to counter. Military radar's and communications kit is
well designed & expensive gear, designed to operate in all sorts of hostile
environments. Police speed guns are not. Theyre relatively simple devices
designed to operate in a consistent environment. Given that we don't know
the full story it would be difficult to come to a conclusion. What if the
Tornado was just taking off and the policeman was at the end of the runway?
Do you think that it would be impossible then?
Haven't you ever heard of Citizens Band radios being damaged by idiots
operating 'burners'? Burners are power amplifiers which ramp up Tx power to
several hundred watts. Anybody nearby operating a CB is at risk of damaging
their receiver.
Where did you get the 2000' from? Is that how high up the jet was supposed
to be when the incident happened?
Tornado's regularly fly much lower than 1000', the RAF specialises in low
flying, not like the US air force who generally bomb from medium/high level.
I'm not knocking the US airforce by the way, they just operate differently.
To stop this thread going on forever I shall find out if this story is true
and report it back to this newsgroup.
Tim
Book_Guy
Steve wrote in message <37B522...@armory.com>...
>Tim & Gina Woodburn wrote:
>>
>> Richard Steven Walz <mailto:rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
>> news:Bbqs3.2125$lL2.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
>> > In article <37B1E55B...@bigfoot.com>,
>> > Steve Maughan <Steve....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> > >Steve La Joie wrote:
[snip]
>No. At that far in front of the plane, well over 2000 feet or more even
>if the tornado was in a crash dive,
Crash dive? As in a submarine? :-)
>given the inverse square law,
Depends on the antenna gain, source energy, and the
amount of energy the RF stage of the officer's radar gun
can handle without being damaged.
Inverse sqare law applies to radiators that radiate in
a spherical way.
> even
>if a dish is used, we are talking signal level voltages, not power level
>induced voltages. ECM confuses, it doesn't "blow up" things. I wish
>idiot adolescents didn't amplify their fantasies so repeatably.
Your right as an idiot adolescent to spout off about the things you
are ignorant of is well protected. I even encourage it.
1/r^2 applies to light bulbs that radiate in all directions.
The ECM coming from the aircraft was probably emitted
from a phased array antenna of very high gain and very
specific direction. It is quite likely to fry the microwave
detector in a simple policeman's radar speed detector.
Pat Ford
> specific direction. It is quite likely to fry the microwave
> detector in a simple policeman's radar speed detector.
was that a simple policeman or a simple radar gun 8))
Bob
Steve La Joie wrote in message <37B34712...@eskimo.com>...
>Richard Steven Walz wrote:
>>
...
>
>> and it falls off VERY fast at a distance.
>
>exactly 1/r^2 fall offs here.
In theory, this would be a focused and columnated beam, not a point source
radiated pulse, so the inverse square law doesn't really apply. Actually,
similar equations apply within the area covered by the beam, but since the
beam doesn't diverge much the falloff equation won't be an inverse square.
Instead it will be related to the actual divergence factor of the beam.
This is the same idea used to create a laser beam. In essence, what you
would want to create is an RF or microwave laser. To do this, all you would
need is a solid reflector and a partial reflector for the frequency you want
to generate and an emitter that you can pulse at the required rate to
reinforce the building wave at the proper time. The reflectors and the
emitter must be set at a distance that is some multiple of the wavelength
you want to generate. Harmonic resonance builds the energy level until it
can burst through your partial reflector. Energy levels to the sides of
this would fall off by an inverse square equation and so, while they may
generate some small interference, should be easily suppressed while the
energy level within the beam path could be significantly higher.
This is hardly science fiction. These basic concepts are pretty well
understood by now and, given the aggressive and competitive nature of
military weaponry, I would find it hard to believe that something like this
hasn't been devised yet. Whether this kind of device could generate and
project enough energy to produce the effects described, I don't know, but
resonant effects can be used to generate massive power levels using fairly
small and simple devices. Internal device damage, even including blowing
apart silicon-based devices and electrolytics, is certainly possible. Maybe
St. Elmo's Fire from ionization which might account for the "sparks"
described. Melted plastic and fire would probably be more likely from
subsidiary damage from the discharge of internal power due to shorts and
damaged circuitry than from the beam itself.
Bob
Marek Lewandowski
fluorescent lamp held in a distance of 1m.
My friend had a small house (one of these nearby a lake you may rent to for
a week or two during holidays) nearby a big radio emitter tower. When he
needed light in there he simply put 2m rod on the top of the roof, connected
it with a wire to one contact of a 60W bulb, put a second rod into the
ground and connected it to the second connector of the bulb. Light was even
stronger than a 60W bulb gives in normal conditions. (now guess why he sold
that house...)
--
Marek Lewandowski
mailto:twil...@callisto.krakow.pl ICQ#: 10139051
mailto:twil...@gdynia.multinet.pl
Student @ Technical University of Gdansk, Poland
http://www.callisto.krakow.pl/~twilight
Bob napisał(a) w wiadomości: <7paahb$c97$3...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
Wim Lewis
Book_Guy <book...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Inverse sqare law applies to radiators that radiate in
>a spherical way.
>1/r^2 applies to light bulbs that radiate in all directions.
>The ECM coming from the aircraft was probably emitted
>from a phased array antenna of very high gain and very
>detector in a simple policeman's radar speed detector.
The inverse square law applies to *all* emitters in the far field.
Think diffraction.
--
Wim Lewis - wi...@netcom.com, also hhhh.org - Seattle, WA, USA
Nathan Lindsey
Book_Guy wrote:
>
> Steve wrote in message <37B522...@armory.com>...
> >Tim & Gina Woodburn wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Steven Walz <mailto:rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Bbqs3.2125$lL2.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
> >> > In article <37B1E55B...@bigfoot.com>,
> >> > Steve Maughan <Steve....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> > >Steve La Joie wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >No. At that far in front of the plane, well over 2000 feet or more even
> >if the tornado was in a crash dive,
>
> Crash dive? As in a submarine? :-)
>
> >given the inverse square law,
>
> Depends on the antenna gain, source energy, and the
> amount of energy the RF stage of the officer's radar gun
> can handle without being damaged.
>
> Inverse sqare law applies to radiators that radiate in
> a spherical way.
>
> > even
> >if a dish is used, we are talking signal level voltages, not power level
> >induced voltages. ECM confuses, it doesn't "blow up" things. I wish
> >idiot adolescents didn't amplify their fantasies so repeatably.
>
> Your right as an idiot adolescent to spout off about the things you
> are ignorant of is well protected. I even encourage it.
>
> 1/r^2 applies to light bulbs that radiate in all directions.
> The ECM coming from the aircraft was probably emitted
> from a phased array antenna of very high gain and very
> specific direction. It is quite likely to fry the microwave
> detector in a simple policeman's radar speed detector.
Sorry, but that just ain't so.
Inverse Square Law applies to far field radiation of most any signal,
from audio, through the RF bands. I've trudge through too many chigger
infested ranches physically measuring RF radiated signal strength as
proof of performance of directional (non circular) antenna arrays of AM
radio stations to let this one go uncorrected.
After I got tired of that I began building and tuning commercial sound
reinforcement systems where we designed the speaker systems to be highly
directional to accommodate and correct for building acoustics and found
the laws of physics to be applicable here as well.
--
Nathan
Chris Moore
lead from the transmitter that was supposed to go to the antenna and
attached it to a giant resistor that looked like a paint can and smelled
like fresh asphalt. This was to keep the transmitters from burning out
nearby receivers. Being less than 20 or so years old some of my classmates
attached various little creatures to the antennas and cooked them just like
a microwave. I also know of two people who attempted to use a radar detector
to and an accompanying transmitter to burn out police radar. I don't know if
it worked. But they believe it did. I think they had the right idea because
they burnt out the radar detector.
cm
Marek Lewandowski <twil...@callisto.krakow.pl> wrote in message
news:9Psu3.27141$X3.4...@news.tpnet.pl...