Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!waltw From: waltw@mentor.com (Walt Wilson) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: Fooling Radar Detectors Message-ID: <1990Aug23.002733.1080@mentor.com> Date: 23 Aug 90 00:27:33 GMT References: <1990Aug15.112532.17516@ariel.unm.edu> <6154@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> Reply-To: waltw@mntgfx.UUCP (Walt Wilson) Organization: /etc/organization Lines: 29 In article <6154@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> vekurpan@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Vincent E Kurpan) writes: >Radar countermeasures: > >When I worked at Sanders in a radar countermeasures group I asked >one of our Phd guru types about passive measures like a simple fan >in front of the radiator. He said it probably would work quite well >BUT even passive countermeasures would be construed as obstruction >of justice. In the same sense that your license plate must be visible >for all to see, your radar image must also be "plainly visible". >He was at one time a consultant on police radar and worked for the >state police investigating backscatter for potential health risk. >I guess he inquired at that time . Anyhow, he convinced me not to >persue it. Many RADAR guns use frequencies listed officially with the FCC as "shared" frequencies with amateur (HAM) radio. It occurs to me, since the purpose of HAM radio is to encourage the advancement of the art and science of radio, mounting my home-made anti- collision device on the dash fits the stated purpose of HAM radio. Since I would have no way of knowing when the police might choose to "share" this frequency, and I have a very good driving record eliminating the excuse of "probable cause", I doubt their radar would be able to see anything through the up to 1000 watts I'm allowed to use. (A couple might be enough.) Just a thought. WWIII