Another look at Radar Detector Legality for Hams
Donald P Perley
>now we put 2 and 2 together
>Since the allocation for X Band (10Ghz) falls within the 100 Mhz bandwidth
>centered on 10.525 Ghz for police radar
>and the K band allocation is right in the middle of our band
>incidently this K band freq is 24.15 Ghz
>Who is to say that the radar detectors, which can easily be a reception device
>for cw are illegal for amateurs to use in any state?
People working portable microwave stations in the ARRL v/u/shf
contests have reported that the W2SZ/1 station on Mt Greylock has
pegged their radar detector from 30 miles away on 24 Ghz. I plan to
use one next time in addition to the usual array of gear for 8 bands.
hmm... maybe mount it on a dish...
don perley - ke2tp
N5PYK
We (amateur radio folk) have allocated bands from 10.0 Ghz to 10.5 GHz
and from 24.00 to 24.25 Ghz.
Additional note
Radar detector bandwidth is generally somewhere in the 100 Mhz range
ok
now we put 2 and 2 together
Since the allocation for X Band (10Ghz) falls within the 100 Mhz bandwidth
centered on 10.525 Ghz for police radar
and the K band allocation is right in the middle of our band
incidently this K band freq is 24.15 Ghz
Who is to say that the radar detectors, which can easily be a reception device
for cw are illegal for amateurs to use in any state?
You might comment to me if you have some other ideas about it.
Joe Jurecka
Call
N5PYK
PACKET: N5...@W5AC.TX.USA.NA
INTERNET: JWJ...@VENUS.TAMU.EDU
BITNET: JWJ2047@TAMVENUS
COLLEGE: TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY WHOOOOOOP!
Fred Lloyd SUN Phoenix SE 602-275-4242
I dialed into the Kenwood BBS (213) 761-8284 and was quite pleased
with the depth of the info on line. Here's a sample:
The following is a copy of the file reflst2.doc which is a list
of service bulletins by model number. Each has a file name of
sbxxx.doc where xxx is the bulletin number. Use zeros to fill
the unused positions - i.e. number 35 would be sb035.doc.
I found that some of the files were missing, but I'm sure that
they can be requested.
AT-930 877 SERVICE NOTES
BS-8 41 ALIGNMENT WITH TS-180S
DG-1 19 NEW DISPLAY TUBE
DG-1 26 SERVICE NOTES
DG-1 53 STANDARD SERVICE
DG-5 25 REPAIR
DG-5 28 REPAIR NOTES
DG-5 29 THEORY OF OPERATION
DG-5 54 STANDARD SERVICE
DK-520 62 DG-5 USE WITH TS-511/TS-900/T/R-599
DS-2 842 REPLACEMENT FOR DS-1A
HMC-1 914 NOT TO BE USED WITH TH-205AT/TH-215A
MC-45 35 MODIFICATION FOR USE WITH TR-7400A
MC-46 852 DTMF OPERATION WITH OLDER EQUIPMENT
MC-55 953 CHANGE IN MIC ELEMENT (T91-0328-08)
PS-430 938 VOLTAGE INCREASE WITH TH-205/215
PS-50 916 IMPROVED VOLTAGE SURGE PROTECTION
QR-666 3 VFO STABILITY
R-1000 805 MUTING
R-1000 813 AGC AM BANDWIDTH CHANGES
R-1000 823 RF ATTENUATOR 10dB STEP OPTION
R-5000 919 NO FREQ CHANGE BY COMPUTER INTERFACE
R-599A/D 8 SERVICE NOTES
R-599A/D 31 REMOVING CB BAND
RC-10 922 HANG UP TIME/TIMEOUT TIMER SETTINGS
RC-10 927 ALTERNATOR NOISE
RM-76 33 FREQUENCY ERROR WITH TR-7600/7625
RM-76 59 BATTERY BACK-UP POWER
RM-76 802 MICROPROCESSOR FAILURE
SM-220 57 SHIELD INSTALLATION
SM-220 66 FEEDBACK FROM BS-8
SMC-25 864 MODIFICATION FOR USE WITH THE TR-2400
T-599A/D 7 SERVICE NOTES
T-599D 6 CHAIN DRIVE MODIFICATION
T-599D 17 REDUCING 120Hz HUM
TH-205 945 SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO IMPROVEMENT
TH-205/215 920 PROTECTION FUSE REPLACEMENT WITH DIODE
TH-205/215 944 VOLUME/SQUELCH CONTROL IMPROVEMENT
TH-215/415 946 TX SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO IMPROVEMENT
TH-25/45 932 W/TSU-6 TONE ALERT IMPROVEMENTS
TH-25/45 939 AUTOMATIC POWER OFF
TM-201/401 880 INCREASED TX AUDIO
TM-211/411 897 AF GAIN CONTROL PART CHANGE
TM-221A 933 NO TX IN HIGH POWER DUE TO VOLTAGE DROP
TM-221A 934 FINAL MODULE HINTS
TM-2550 904 DCL CALL SIGN DATA
TM-2570 906 LOW TX POWER OUTPUT
TM-321A 935 LOSS OF TX AUDIO WITH MC-48B
TM-3530A 925 NOISY TRANSMIT
TM-411 892 LOW/NO RECEIVER SENSITIVITY
TM-721A 930 MICROCOMPUTER LOCK-UP
TM-721A 931 LOW/NO VHF TRANSMIT POWER
TM-721A 936 S-METER DEFLECTION DUE TO PULSE NOISE
TM-721A 937 AF PA WHITE NOISE WITH SQUELCH ON
TR-2200A 11 ANTENNA ADAPTER
TR-2200A 22 SERVICE NOTES
TR-2400 58 TONE ENCODER RFI
TR-2400 807 OPTIONAL CHARGE INPUT PROTECTION
TR-2400 808 OFFSET FAILURE
TR-2400 809 UNWANTED NOISE: TONE OR BURST AT TX
TR-2400 810 DISPLAY OR KEYBOARD TROUBLE
TR-2400 811 RX LOW INTERMITTENT OR DISTORTED
TR-2400 814 UNLOCK
TR-2400 815 PULSE NOISE
TR-2400 818 SCRATCHY TX
TR-2400 819 VOLUME CONTROL REPLACEMENT
TR-2400 822 BATTERY CHARGER FAILURE
TR-2400 830 TX NOISE
TR-2500 858 RX IMD IMPROVEMENT
TR-2600A 901 PLL UNLOCK (TROUBLESHOOTING)
TR-2600A 903 PLL UNLOCK
TR-7200A 23 SERVICE NOTES
TR-7400A 10 FINAL UNIT ARCING
TR-7400A 18 SERVICE NOTES
TR-7400A 32 CHANGES IN PD UNIT
TR-7400A 34 METER LAMP LONGER LIFE
TR-7600/7625 39 ALTERNATOR WHINE
TR-7600/7625 45 AUDIO TONE ON TX
TR-7600/7625 50 OPTIONAL CERAMIC FILTER
TR-7600/7625 65 RF POWER MODULE RETURNS (OBSOLETE)
TR-7600/7625 806 MEMORY BATTERY BACK-UP
TR-7625 804 INTERMITTENT TX
TR-7625 820 FINAL MODULE REPLACEMENT
TR-7625 826 HYBRID AMPLIFIER MODULE SUBSTITUTION
TR-7730 854 TX FREQUENCY RESPONSE VOICE OR DTMF
TR-7800 828 TONE PAD CONVERSION FOR 4th COLUMN FUNCTION
TR-7800 829 MEMORY LOSS SUPERSEDED BY SB-861
TR-7800 834 PULSE NOISE
TR-7800/7850 860 MEMORY CH. 7 INDICATOR ERRATIC
TR-7800/7850 861 MEMORY IMPROVEMENTS
TR-7800/9000 833 OPTIONAL CERAMIC FILTERS
TR-7850 846 RF LED METER (LOW READINGS)
TR-7930/7950 870 RX INTERFERENCE
TR-8300 16 ALIGNMENT
TR-8400 843 SUB-AUDIBLE ENCODER INSTALLATION
TR-8400 845 RX INTERNAL SPURIOUS SIGNALS
TR-8400 853 TX FREQ RESPONSE VOICE OR DTMF
TR-8400 855 TRANSMIT DELAY TIME
TR-9000 824 CW/SSB TX INSTABILITY
TR-9000 825 TX PULSE NOISE IN SSB
TR-9000 849 TRANSMITTER SIDEBAND CARRIER BALANCE
TR-9000 859 TEMPERATURE STABILITY IMPROVEMENT
TR-9130 871 LOW DRIVE LEVEL
TS-120S 37 VOX OPERATION PICK-UP TIME
TS-120S 38 FINAL TRANSISTOR REPLACEMENT
TS-120S 40 ANTENNA INPUT TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT
TS-120S 48 HUM IN SSB TX
TS-120S 51 FINAL PROTECTION
TS-120S 64 FULL CW OUTPUT IN SSB MODE (USE SB-
TS-120S 801 TX OSCILLATION (USE SB-844)
TS-120S 816 BAND PASS FILTER CHANGE
TS-120S 827 VFO STABILITY
TS-120S 821 TX OSCILLATION (USE SB-844)
TS-120S 831 ANTENNA INPUT TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT
TS-120S 832 FULL CW OUTPUT IN SSB MODE (USE SB-844)
TS-120S 844 TX OSCILLATION
TS-120S/180S 44 PHONE PATCH TERMINAL ADDITION
TS-140S 928 INTERMITTENT LOSS OF TRANSMIT POWER
TS-140S 929 MOMENTARY TX WHEN VOX IS TURNED ON
TS-180S 36 DFC HUM WITH PS-30
TS-180S 42 IF #2 OUTPUT LEVEL CHANGE
TS-180S 47 INCREASE OF RX AUDIO OUTPUT
TS-180S 55 LOW 40 MTR ALC
TS-180S 56 DFC
TS-180S 61 TROUBLE SHEET
TS-180S 67 DFC INSTABILITY
TS-180S 803 CW DELAY DURING VOX MEMORY OPERATION
TS-180S 817 USE WITH A LINEAR AMPLIFIER
TS-180S 839 VFO STABILITY
TS-180S 850 LOW PASS FILTER OPTIONAL CHANGES
TS-430S 865 500KHz HETERODYNE
TS-430S 882 NOTCH CONTROL
TS-430S 883 AM WIDE/NARROW FILTER SELECTION
TS-430S 885 RECEIVER INTERNAL BEAT
TS-430S 887 NOISE BLANKER IMPROVEMENTS
TS-430S 888 INTERMITTENT PLL UNLOCK IN FM/AM
TS-430S 891 PLL UNLOCK AT HIGH TEMP. (USE SB-895)
TS-430S 895 PLL UNLOCK AT HIGH TEMPERATURES
TS-430S 902 LOW/INTERMITTENT RX
TS-440S 947 OPERATION WITH THE MC-85
TS-440S 948 NOTCH FILTER LOW FREQUENCY IMPROVEMENTS
TS-440S 949 PROTECTING Q33
TS-440S 950 CASE SCREWS BINDING IN THE HEAT SINK
TS-440S 952 INTERMITTENT OPERATION (REMOVE SOCKET)
TS-520 2 NOVICE OPERATION (75 WATTS)
TS-520 4 AM BROADCAST INTERFERENCE
TS-520 21 SERVICE NOTES
TS-520 63 IF OUTPUT FOR SM-220
TS-520(S) 46 CW FREQUENCY SHIFT
TS-520(S) 52 BS-5 SWEEP INTERFERENCE
TS-520S 43 -6VDC SUPPLY FAILURE
TS-520S/820S 812 CW FILTER SELECT CONTROL
TS-530S 848 LOW VOLTAGE SUPPLY OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
TS-530S 878 IF UNIT Q2-Q7 PROTECTION
TS-660 856 MICROPROCESSOR LATCH-UP
TS-700A 20 SERVICE NOTES
TS-700A 5 REPEATER MODIFICATION (EUROPE)
TS-700A 27 9 VOLT REGULATOR REPLACEMENT
TS-820 12 AUX BAND INSTALLATION (RX ONLY)
TS-820 13 RIT MODIFICATION
TS-820 14 MICROPHONE INPUT ATTENUATOR
TS-820S 9 SPEECH PROCESSOR ALIGNMENT
TS-820S 24 SERVICE NOTES
TS-820S 30 GENERAL ALIGNMENT PROCEDURES
TS-820S 954 TA7201P SUBSTITUTION PARTS KIT
TS-830S 837 OPERATION ON 240V AC
TS-830S 840 FREQUENCY SHIFT
TS-830S 847 LOW VOLTAGE SUPPLY OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
TS-830S 851 NOISE BLANKER OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
TS-830S 857 TRANSMITTER "TALKBACK"
TS-930S 863 INCORRECT LINE VOLTAGE SETTING
TS-930S 866 CW HETERODYNE TONE
TS-930S 867 SSB TX TONE QUALITY
TS-930S 868 LOW RX SENSITIVITY
TS-930S 869 PLL UNLOCK
TS-930S 872 CW PITCH TONE SHIFT
TS-930S 873 CW VBT
TS-930S 874 RF FEEDBACK
TS-930S 875 RX AUDIO OSCILLATION
TS-930S 876 RF FEEDBACK INTO MIC CIRCUIT
TS-930S 879 ALC LEVEL DRIFT 28 MHz CW
TS-930S 881 POWER SUPPLY SURGE PROTECTION
TS-930S 884 15 MTR INTERNAL BEAT NOTE
TS-930S 886 INTERMITTENT TX POWER OUTPUT
TS-930S 893 NOISY POWER SUPPLY FAN
TS-940S 896 LCD CLOCK DISPLAY ERRATIC OPERATION
TS-940S 900 PLL UNLOCK
TS-940S 907 ANTENNA TUNER RELAYS
TS-940S 908 PLL UNLOCK
TS-940S 909 AVR UNIT CAPACITOR CHANGE
TS-940S 910 AGC CIRCUIT IMPROVEMENTS
TS-940S 912 TRANSMITTER HUM IN SSB
TS-940S 913 SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO IMPROVEMENT
TS-940S 917 VCO CARRIER TO NOISE RATIO IMPROVEMENT
TS-940S 918 SQUELCH SWITCHING NOISE
TS-940S 921 SSB TALK POWER IMPROVEMENT
TS-940S 951 ERRATIC DISPLAY (REMOVE SOCKET)
TW-4100A 926 REPEATER STOP SCAN ON THE UHF BAND
VFO-120 862 DIAL LAMP SWITCHING CIRCUIT
VFO-230 838 OPERATION ON 240V AC
VOX-3 15 SENSITIVITY AND DELAY
49 UHF/VHF OPTIONAL FILTER LIST
905 COAX CABLE W/PLUG LIST
941 SERVICE MANUAL RX SECTION LEVEL DIAGRAMS
942 SERVICE MANUAL TX SECTION LEVEL DIAGRAMS
--
| Fred Lloyd AA7BQ fll...@West.sun.com |
| Sun Microsystems, Inc. ...sun!flloyd |
| Phoenix, AZ |
Fred Lloyd SUN Phoenix SE 602-275-4242
Here's a sample service bulletin - # 948
SB-948
TS-440S NOTCH FILTER LOW FREQUENCY IMPROVEMENTS 01/20/89
The low frequency attenuation characteristics of the notch
filter can be improved by reducing the input level to the
notch filter chip (IC1). To compensate for the loss of input
level, the amount of negative feedback to the audio
amplifier (IC7) will need to be reduced. This modification
is already incorporated in all models beginning with serial
number 704XXXX.
REQUIRED PARTS:
120K OHM, 1/6 WATT RESISTOR ........ RD14CB2C124J
390 OHM, 1/6 WATT RESISTOR ........ RD14CB2C391J
1. Disconnect the power supply and antenna.
2. Using a #2 Phillips screw driver, remove the 9 screws
from the top cover. Remove the top cover from the
transceiver and unplug the speaker wire.
3. Locate resistors R86 and R229 on the component side of
the IF board (Figure 1).
4. Using a #1 Phillips screw driver, remove the 7 screws
that secure the IF unit to the chassis of the
transceiver.
5. Pull the board up and rotate it towards the front of the
transceiver to expose the foil side of the board.
6. Desolder and remove both resistors from the board.
7. Install and solder a 102K ohm resistor in place of R86.
8. Install and solder a 390 ohm resistor in place of R229.
9. Assemble the transceiver by reversing steps 1 - 5.
This is an optional change that may not be performed under
warranty.
Donald P Perley
>
>
>Does anyone recall the 73 article some years ago that showed how to
>build a device which would receive police radar, and then transmit
>back, shifting the frequency so that the speed indicated on the
>radar unit matched the digits set up on thumbwheels on the device?
>The joke was that the author claimed that this was for HAM communications!
>It allowed you to work microwave mobile, automatically responding to
>any "beacon" transmissions from other vehicles! The antenna was mounted
>behind the grill in the front of the car......
The.. umm... transponders (yeah, thats it) I have read about mostly AM
modulate a microwave carrier with a tone. By the time it comes out
of the detector, the receiver sees the modulation rather than the beat.
That way you don't have to do any adjusting for what his actual
transmitting frequency is (as long as you get the band right).
If you frequency shifted his signal with a mixer and retransmitted just
a few hundred hz away I think you would have feedback problems
(and need REAL hi Q filters to remove the unwanted mixing products).
-don perley - ke2tp
Jeff DePolo
>In article <5...@ssc.UUCP>, tad@ssc (Tad Cook) writes:
>>Does anyone recall the 73 article some years ago that showed how to
>>build a device which would receive police radar, and then transmit
>>back, shifting the frequency so that the speed indicated on the
>>radar unit matched the digits set up on thumbwheels on the device?
>
>modulate a microwave carrier with a tone. By the time it comes out
>of the detector, the receiver sees the modulation rather than the beat.
>That way you don't have to do any adjusting for what his actual
>transmitting frequency is (as long as you get the band right).
You can accomplish the same thing just by switching the transmitter
on and off, which is a little easier than AMing, especially when using
a Gunn source. Not quite the same, but it should still produce the
desired effect.
>If you frequency shifted his signal with a mixer and retransmitted just
>a few hundred hz away I think you would have feedback problems
>(and need REAL hi Q filters to remove the unwanted mixing products).
Very true. Plus you'd have to track his drift and also worry about
your own car's speed.
>-don perley - ke2tp
>
>per...@trub.crd.ge.com
--- Jeff
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199
dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia)
University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
=Ron Todd
>
> I dialed into the Kenwood BBS (213) 761-8284 and was quite pleased
> with the depth of the info on line. Here's a sample:
>
This is great stuff, is anyone out in L.A. investigating getting this
sort of stuff onto an ftp site or hooked up to a listserver? How bout
HAMSTER?
K3FR
Mike Yetsko
an article to rec.auto entitled "The Hitch-hikers Guide to Radar Jamming".
It brought a torrent from a few net.police types, and a FLOOD of mail
requesting more info.
So, I will not repost, but.....
The only practical economical method of jammimg is to overload the front
end of the unit by transmitting pulse mode, which is an illegal mode for
X-band ham.
Secondly, the new Radar units are much more sophisticated than in 1980.
The last unit I looked at had 2 indicators of interest on the display.
One was "RF". This went on when the radar unit detected RF energy above
a certain strength that MIGHT interfeer with the radar unit, and the unit
would shut down the reading and calculations. This is to prevent
interference from on-board radios in the cruiser, but I don't at this time
know all the details.
The other indicator is "JA", for JAM! This is activated whenever the radar
unit detects a jamming signal. I do NOT know if it looks for the pulse or
what, but in snooping I SUSPECT the new units put modulate a tone on the
carrier and the JA goes on when the unit can't detect it's own tone. But
then, I'm not sure. Do YOU want to risk you drivers license AND your HAM
ticket?
Mike Yetsko
InterLan
I don't have a radar detector, it's an application specific field strength
indicator.
Dave Heller
Marc T. Kaufman
>Such garbage. If radar helps keep the highways slower=safer, i'm all for
>it. Make radar detectors illegal everywhere!
Shall we parse the above statements?
IF radar helps keep the highways slower / =safer, /[THEN] i'm all for it.
Perfectly good statement, however there is the implied postulate (or
Theorem yet to be proved) "slower=safer". In any event, I'm all for letting
him be all for it.
Make radar detectors illegal everywhere!
Pray tell, how does this follow from the first proposition? There is
(at least anecdotal) evidence that the use of radar detectors causes would-be
speeders to be more conscious of their speed and (when the radar is near),
actually slow down. This would appear to be a desirable effect. Yet,
Mr. Heller would have us outlaw their use. The net effect of THAT would seem
to me to be MORE speeding, with (possibly) higher revenues for the police; at
least as compared to the legal radar detector scenario.
So which is it to be... road safety or more revenue?
Marc Kaufman (kau...@Neon.stanford.edu)
Jim Grubs
> From: yet...@interlan.interlan.com (Mike Yetsko)
> Date: 30 Nov 90 13:53:27 GMT
> Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
> Message-ID: <YETSKO.90N...@interlan.interlan.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>
> I don't have a radar detector, it's an application specific field
> strength indicator.
As a side benefit, it also assists safety conscious drivers to pinpoint
those portions of the Interstate that are considered by knowledgeable
authorities to be fraught with hazard as a consequence of the large number of
motorists driving without due regard for safety. :)
--
Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
Jim Grubs
> From: kau...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
> Date: 1 Dec 90 07:35:34 GMT
> Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
> Message-ID: <1990Dec1.0...@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>
> In article <6...@wells.UUCP> k3...@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller) writes:
> >Such garbage. If radar helps keep the highways slower=safer, i'm all for
> >it. Make radar detectors illegal everywhere!
>
> Shall we parse the above statements?
>
> IF radar helps keep the highways slower / =safer, /[THEN] i'm all for
> it.
>
> Perfectly good statement, however there is the implied postulate (or
> Theorem yet to be proved) "slower=safer". In any event, I'm all for
> letting
> him be all for it.
>
> Make radar detectors illegal everywhere!
>
> Pray tell, how does this follow from the first proposition? There is
> (at least anecdotal) evidence that the use of radar detectors causes
> would-be
> speeders to be more conscious of their speed and (when the radar is
> near),
> actually slow down. This would appear to be a desirable effect. Yet,
Speaking as a retired police dispatcher, I can assure you that it is not
uncommon for officers to "run radar" with the full knowledge and intent that
tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down. Sometimes on holidays, this is the
SOLE purpose.
John Moore
]Speaking as a retired police dispatcher, I can assure you that it is not
]tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down. Sometimes on holidays, this is the
]SOLE purpose.
This is, however, illegal - if you could ever prove it. The band is
allocated only for radiolocation - not for spoofing or broadcasting.
The FCC busted some police department back east for a similar violation.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!jo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.
Mike Yetsko
I ever heard of with teh FCC and Police Radar was a complaint filed by
a truckers group about police in Oregon setting up old defective radar
units along the highway with solar cells. These units would still transmit
but not receive. The units would then trigger the detectors in areas
the police considered as hazardous, and caused traffic to slow.
The FCC became involved and the 2 (maybe 3) police departments discontinued
the practice.
It is currently policy in at LEAST one state police and many local
police departments to LEAVE RADAR ON during a traffic stop. This has been
statistically shows to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of officers injured
during trafic stops. The FCC is mute on this, as well as various motorist
groups, at least so far.
Mike Yetsko
N1DVJ
Minor Cross
>
> uncommon for officers to "run radar" with the full knowledge and intent
> that tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down. Sometimes on holidays,
> this is the SOLE purpose.
One of the local officiers, who is also a ham, has a lot of fun with his
radar unit! When he spots a car with a radar detector in the window, he
likes to track the car, with the speed gun OFF! Likes to watch the
reactions of the drivers trying to figure out why their detectors didn't
alert them to his radar!!
Happy and safe holidays!
Insert Standard Disclaimer notice here:
___
/ / Minor Cross KD7YJ
/ / Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuit Business Division
/ /_____ _________ 1050 NE Circle Blvd.
/ ___ / ____ / ___ / Corvallis, OR 97330
/ / / / /___/ / /__/ / -------------------------
/__/ /__/ / ______/ AT&T: (503) 750-2044
/ / HP telnet 750-2044
/__/ }inhp4!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvca!hpcvck!mcross
Gary Coffman
>In article <655.27...@w8grt.fidonet.org> jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org (Jim Grubs) writes:
>]Speaking as a retired police dispatcher, I can assure you that it is not
>]uncommon for officers to "run radar" with the full knowledge and intent that
>]tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down. Sometimes on holidays, this is the
>]SOLE purpose.
>
>This is, however, illegal - if you could ever prove it. The band is
>allocated only for radiolocation - not for spoofing or broadcasting.
>The FCC busted some police department back east for a similar violation.
John's right about this one. The local field office busted the DeKalb County
Ga. police department for this one. They were very blatent however in that
they mounted surplus radar units on expressway signs and just let them run.
Their intent was to make radar detectors useless by generating many false
readings. The field office busted them for transmitting false and misleading
signals as well as for intentional jamming. The local field office also
busted the State Patrol for failing to have transmitter ID cards attached
to their radar units. The Field Engineer in Charge likes to drive fast. :-)
On a somewhat related note, the regional EPA office busted the Gwinnett
County Police for illegal tampering with emission controls in order to
make their crusiers run faster. Guess what EPA officer likes to drive
fast. :-)
Gary KE4ZV
Tad Cook
> In article <655.27...@w8grt.fidonet.org> jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org (Jim Grubs) writes:
>, I can assure you that it is not
>> ]uncommon for officers to "run radar" with the full knowledge and intent that
> ]tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down.
>
> This is, however, illegal - if you could ever prove it. The band is
> allocated only for radiolocation - not for spoofing or broadcasting.
> The FCC busted some police department back east for a similar violation.
Did they really? I recall hearing about radar decoy transmitters, that
were being placed adjacent to highways to trip radar detectors. So
this is illegal?
Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: 206/527-4089
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, t...@ssc.UUCP
Bruce B. Sawyer
>In article <6...@wells.UUCP> k3...@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller) writes:
> >Such garbage. If radar helps keep the highways slower=safer, i'm all for
> >it. Make radar detectors illegal everywhere!
Whereupon Mr. Kaufman attempts to argue with said logic and concludes with the
rhetorical,
>So which is it to be... road safety or more revenue?
This is getting well outside the world of ham radio, but still touches on some-
thing I find curious. When I got my ticket I'll have to admit to joining into
a few sideband ragchews. One thing that struck me about the common mentality
I tended to find there (American sidebanders) was precisely this authoritarian
bent Dave Heller demonstrates wherein the collective good is presumed to be
so much more important than individual liberties and is viewed as being so
dependent upon the welfare of the individual that society as a whole (meaning,
of course, government) has an obligation to restrict the individual's liberties
in those areas where exercise of the liberties might allow him to do harm to
himself. I think this was one of the founding principles of California, so
it doesn't surprise me to see this in the locals, but it seems to me that this
is also characteriscit of American hams in general, or at least the sidebanders.
By and large, these people tend to be in favor of mandatory seat belt laws,
probably would support the mandatory earthquake insurance law California just
passed, are distinctly intolerant when it comes to issues of drug use, etc.
Maybe this is just a function of the average age of the U.S. ham population.
Does anybody know? Why ARE American hams such rednecks?
Marc T. Kaufman
>Does anybody know? Why ARE American hams such rednecks?
Because only rednecks have enough land to erect an antenna farm. :-)
Marc Kaufman (kau...@Neon.stanford.edu)
Jim Grubs
> From: t...@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook)
> Date: 7 Dec 90 07:11:09 GMT
> Organization: very little
> Message-ID: <6...@ssc.UUCP>
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>
> In article <55...@qip.UUCP>, jo...@qip.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
> > In article <655.27...@w8grt.fidonet.org> jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
> (Jim Grubs) writes:
> >, I can assure you that it is not
> >> ]uncommon for officers to "run radar" with the full knowledge and intent
> that
> > ]tripping fuzzbusters will slow things down.
>
> >
> > This is, however, illegal - if you could ever prove it. The band is
> > allocated only for radiolocation - not for spoofing or broadcasting.
> > The FCC busted some police department back east for a similar violation.
>
>
> Did they really?
Doubtful. In the first place, how do you prove it? All the police chief has to
say is that he was gathering traffic flow statistics.
--
Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
Jeff DePolo
[Various messages about police using unmanned radar transmitters to set
off detectors]
>Doubtful. In the first place, how do you prove it? All the police chief has
>to say is that he was gathering traffic flow statistics.
>--
>Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
The FCC isn't going to approach the department without proof that they
were using dummy radar. When an FCC engineer goes to one of the radar
gun sites, he'll see a radar unit sitting there, with probably a gel
cell or something powering it, and that's it. If the PD was gathering
"traffic flow statistics", they'd need some means of recording the
statistics they gathered, i.e. either some type of computer with a
storage device, a printer of some sort, etc.
Also, when agencies like the Department of Transportation or the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration set out to get traffic statistics,
they use special radar guns that are not on the standard X or K frequencies
for the sake of getting unbiased readings. If they used standard guns,
they would set of detectors, and they would end up getting averages
below what is typical.
IMHO, an FCC engineer will recognize this ploy as pure BS.
David M. Bruce
In article <34...@netnews.upenn.edu> dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo) writes:
>In article <693.27...@w8grt.fidonet.org> jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org (Jim Grubs) writes:
>
>[Various messages about police using unmanned radar transmitters to set
>off detectors]
>
>>Doubtful. In the first place, how do you prove it? All the police chief has
>>to say is that he was gathering traffic flow statistics.
>>--
>>Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
>
>[Some more stuff about unmanned radar transmitters]
>
>IMHO, an FCC engineer will recognize this ploy as pure BS.
>
> --- Jeff
IMHO, no FCC engineer is really going to care anyway.
and besides, If the radar gun is on it's performing radio telemetry.
It doesn't matter if you're looking at the readout or not. If an air
traffic controller looks away from his scope is he breaking the law
too?
dmb
Jeff DePolo
[Stuff about unmanned radar guns being used, the FCC finding them, etc.]
>IMHO, no FCC engineer is really going to care anyway.
>
Apparently they did. They terminated this practice in Georgia where
they were using radar guns mounted to roadside poles. They also
stopped the Pennsylvania State Police who had been putting old radar
guns in highway maintainence vehicles, median lawn tractors, etc.
>and besides, If the radar gun is on it's performing radio telemetry.
>It doesn't matter if you're looking at the readout or not. If an air
>traffic controller looks away from his scope is he breaking the law
>too?
It doesn't matter whether or not somebody is looking at it. It DOES
matter whether or not there is someone there to control the emissions.
Radar guns aren't classified as telemetry equipment. The license is
for radiolocation. FCC regs also state that this type of device must
be manned. Also, a radar detector is a radio receiver. If somebody
is interfering with its use, that is, somebody is setting it off without
a reason for transmitting, that is also an FCC violation. See part
15 for more info. Radar guns are part 15 devices, from what I remember.
Jim Grubs
> From: dep...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo)
> Date: 9 Dec 90 05:48:54 GMT
> Organization: University of Pennsylvania
> Message-ID: <34...@netnews.upenn.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>
> In article <693.27...@w8grt.fidonet.org> jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
> (Jim Grubs) writes:
>
> [Various messages about police using unmanned radar transmitters to set
> off detectors]
>
> >Doubtful. In the first place, how do you prove it? All the police chief has
>
> >to say is that he was gathering traffic flow statistics.
> >--
> >Jim Grubs - via FidoNet node 1:234/1
>
> were using dummy radar. When an FCC engineer goes to one of the radar
> gun sites, he'll see a radar unit sitting there, with probably a gel
> cell or something powering it, and that's it. If the PD was gathering
> "traffic flow statistics", they'd need some means of recording the
> statistics they gathered, i.e. either some type of computer with a
> storage device, a printer of some sort, etc.
Don't overcomplicate the problem! All it takes is an auxiliary officer with a
pencil and a notebook.
> Also, when agencies like the Department of Transportation or the
> National
> Highway Traffic Safety Administration set out to get traffic statistics,
> they use special radar guns that are not on the standard X or K
> frequencies
> for the sake of getting unbiased readings.
To find out the fans on the way home from the Michigan - OSU game are pushing
it a bit? Come now.
> IMHO, an FCC engineer will recognize this ploy as pure BS.
An FCC engineer, even if he cared, we would be hard put to demonstrate that
this is not VTO enforcement. The purpose of enforcement is to ensure
compliance, not to rack up a lot of traffic court 'kills'. If the radar trips
a few fuzzbusters while the watch commander is deciding whether to run a
trap, well, that's life.
--
Jim Grubs - via the friendly folks at UUNET
UUCP: ...!uunet!w8grt!jim.grubs
INTERNET: jim....@w8grt.fidonet.org
Marc T. Kaufman
>Radar guns aren't classified as telemetry equipment. The license is
>for radiolocation. FCC regs also state that this type of device must
>be manned. Also, a radar detector is a radio receiver. If somebody
>is interfering with its use, that is, somebody is setting it off without
>a reason for transmitting, that is also an FCC violation. See part
>15 for more info. Radar guns are part 15 devices, from what I remember.
I don't recall a prohibition against receiving radar in the ECPA. Does that
mean there is explicit Federal permission? If so, aren't state laws making
radar detectors illegal preempted by ECPA? And what about out-of-state
vehicles? If radar detectors are legal in the state your car is registered
in, isn't it impermissible interference with interstate commerce to bust
someone for driving through another state with one?
Too bad no one has the time or money to persue this and maybe kill such
laws once and for all.
Marc Kaufman (kau...@Neon.stanford.edu)
Tad Cook
> One of the local officiers, who is also a ham, has a lot of fun with his
> radar unit! When he spots a car with a radar detector in the window, he
> likes to track the car, with the speed gun OFF! Likes to watch the
> reactions of the drivers trying to figure out why their detectors didn't
> alert them to his radar!!
>
I don't get it! Do you mean he sits by the side of the road, waiting
for someone to come by with a radar detector, and then just guesses the
speed without turning the gun on?
Or do you mean he paces the car by following it? In this case, he
would never use radar anyway.
Please clarify.
Jeff DePolo
>
>
>An FCC engineer, even if he cared, we would be hard put to demonstrate that
>this is not VTO enforcement. The purpose of enforcement is to ensure
>compliance, not to rack up a lot of traffic court 'kills'. If the radar trips
>a few fuzzbusters while the watch commander is deciding whether to run a
>trap, well, that's life.
Jim, I think you lost the thread here. We were talking about unmanned radar
units being put along highways for the sole purpose of tripping detectors.
You're right in saying that a officer who is making a stop, or just
driving around and ignoring the radar gun probably won't get cited for
having an uncontrolled transmitter operating. I was talking about roadside
radar guns that are left on continously for the sole purpose of tripping
detectors.
Phil Howard KA9WGN
>Also, when agencies like the Department of Transportation or the National
>Highway Traffic Safety Administration set out to get traffic statistics,
>they use special radar guns that are not on the standard X or K frequencies
>for the sake of getting unbiased readings. If they used standard guns,
>they would set of detectors, and they would end up getting averages
>below what is typical.
One useful statistic is to conduct such studies with BOTH types of systems.
It tells you just how many people "know" they are going over the speed limit.
I've seen it done. The numbers are quite surprising.
--
--Phil Howard, KA9WGN-- | Individual CHOICE is fundamental to a free society
<ph...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> | no matter what the particular issue is all about.
Phil Howard KA9WGN
>In article <1990Dec9.0...@athena.mit.edu> d...@athena.mit.edu (David M. Bruce) writes:
>>and besides, If the radar gun is on it's performing radio telemetry.
>>It doesn't matter if you're looking at the readout or not. If an air
>>traffic controller looks away from his scope is he breaking the law
>>too?
>It doesn't matter whether or not somebody is looking at it. It DOES
>matter whether or not there is someone there to control the emissions.
>Radar guns aren't classified as telemetry equipment. The license is
>for radiolocation. FCC regs also state that this type of device must
>be manned. Also, a radar detector is a radio receiver. If somebody
>is interfering with its use, that is, somebody is setting it off without
>a reason for transmitting, that is also an FCC violation. See part
>15 for more info. Radar guns are part 15 devices, from what I remember.
The radar is NOT telemtry, even if it is gathering statistics (whether
legal or not). It is still radiolocation in that it is determining the
location or velocity of a subject. If the resultant data is transmitted
via radio somewhere else, that would, or could, be telemetry.