Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!cadev4!dbraun
From: dbraun@cadev4.intel.com (Doug Braun ~)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: radar countermeasures
Message-ID: <1800@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 4 Mar 88 16:51:00 GMT
References: <4596@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <20271@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2090@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Sender: nobody@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: dbraun@cadev4.UUCP (Doug Braun ~)
Organization: Corporate CAD, INTeL Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 27

Someone mentioned the fact that someone using a radar gun with an
audio output would become aware of jammers.  This definitely seems
true, and it would make me very reluctant to try a jammer.  If
you had a jammer with a constant pitch AM output, it would sound
a LOT different than the normal Doppler tone.  The Fuzz would
also wonder why you were doing 54 ever after he pulled you over :-)
Even if the pitch of your AM signal was connected to the speedometer
(to give a constant fraction of your true speed), the recieved signal
would not have the noise and jitter that a real signal would have.
I'm SURE you cauld easily detect this by ear.

There is a problem with the jammer-hooked-up-to-the-detector-output
idea.  As soon as the radar detector trips, and turns of the jammer,
the output of the jammer will drive the detector crazy, and the whole thing
will lock up.  I think you wiuld need a jammer that shuts off for a
few microseconds every few milliseconds, and listens to see if
the police radar signal is still there.


Doug Braun				Intel Corp CAD
					408 496-5939

 / decwrl \
 | hplabs |
-| oliveb |- !intelca!mipos3!cadev4!dbraun
 | amd    |
 \ qantel /