I have a question about the quality of American Racing brand
rims. The local Honda dealer is trying to move the ’94 Civic DX models.
I guess the LX have been selling far better and he has a large supply.
So, he’s pricing them to move. In addition, he’s offering a package of
add on options that he has laying around, not selling. Yes, I know its
a way of increasing the price.. but, since the "package" includes
A/C and some power groups as still less thanlist price.. it seems fair.
My question is.. it comes with the Rims ( five point, silver
rims ). They look shapr on the car, though I know they are no Momo’s
or BBS’s. HOwever, someone told me that AR rims are so cheap, the factory steel
stamped rims are safer/better… Is this true?
Much appreciated.
—
So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferrari.
I had the oiled wooden gear shift in one hand, and the leather wrapped
Momo in the other. I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_…
Only two problems, I was upside down, and under six feet of water…
John, Thanks for another well written test report. As they say, good data is
good data, bad data is opinion…
I have a question, though. In article <x+b9…@dixie.com> you wrote in part:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>The correct interpretation
>is that the jammer interefers with the proper function of the police
>radar in violation of the Communications Act. The Communications act is
>very specific. Malicious or intentional intereference with any licensed
>service is illegal regardless of the amount of power involved and it
>makes no distinction as to whether the service involves any intelligence
>transmission or not. As much as we may not like it and as much as many
>of us regard police radar as an unconstitutional warrantless search, the
>fact is police radar IS a licensed and court-sanctioned service and
>transmitting a signal which interefers with it is a federal offense.
>Further, interefering with a radar patrol may be regarded as
>interefering with a police officer and maybe even obstruction of
>justice.
>John
>–
>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j…@dixie.com
>Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
>–
>The government has 3 new savings bonds: The Stephanopoulos bond with no
>maturity, the Gore bond with no interest and the Clinton bond with no principle.
Doesn’t this argument hold for -any- type of police radar jammer? I’m glad to
see the test results, and frankly I’m not surprized at them, but why bother if
an active jammer puts you in this type of risk? Is it possible to build a truly
stealthy jammer? And if so, as you also mentioned, don’t you still run the risk
of a search when the cop sees you react? —Steve
In article <x+b9…@dixie.com> j…@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Carl Russ and I have been at it again. Carl bought one of the
>supposedly creme-de-la-creme of radar jammers, the Stealth Vehicle Radar
>Cloaking Device or VRCD. We’ve just finished testing it against my
>Kustom HR-8 K-band Radar Gun and my MPH brand K55 X-band moving radar.
<<<BIG SNIP>>>
Wow, what a great post! Sounds like you really know your stuff (I am a Comp.
Engineer with a minor in EE). The test sounds well run. I will save my money.
Thanks for posting your results. Keep up the good work.
Andy Bajorinas
==========================================================================
== The above opinions are my own. My employer thinks I am working. 8^) ==
== ==
== Andrew P. Bajorinas bajor…@perkin-elmer.com ==
== Perkin-Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT ==
==========================================================================
== If evolution is outlawed | Never underestimate the power ==
== only outlaws will evolve! | of internet Luke. -O W Kenobi- ==
==========================================================================
In article <CuxtCs….@news.arco.com> Steve Cutchen <scutc…@arco.com> writes:
>John, Thanks for another well written test report. As they say, good data is
>good data, bad data is opinion…
>I have a question, though. In article <x+b9…@dixie.com> you wrote in part:
>>The correct interpretation
>>is that the jammer interefers with the proper function of the police
…stuff deleted…
>>Further, interefering with a radar patrol may be regarded as
>>interefering with a police officer and maybe even obstruction of
>>justice.
>>John
>>–
>>John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j…@dixie.com
>>Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
>>–
>Doesn’t this argument hold for -any- type of police radar jammer? I’m glad to
>see the test results, and frankly I’m not surprized at them, but why bother if
… more stuff deleted…
Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
wonder if you could test this in court.
Nick
–
***************************************************************************
* Nick Ciarallo *
* SR Telecom Inc. telephone: 514-335-2429 ex: 438 *
* Microwave Group facsimile: 514-334-7783 *
* 8150 Trans Canada Hwy internet : n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca *
* St. Laurent, Quebec hamradio : ve2…@ve2fkb.pq.can.na *
* Canada H4S-1M5 *
***************************************************************************
* Accept no substitutes, *REAL* ham radio lives on 220 MHz! *
***************************************************************************
In <1994Aug23.020730.9…@vlsi.polymtl.ca> n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Nick Ciarallo) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
>radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
>radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
>beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
>wonder if you could test this in court.
>Nick
Do you happen to have a cite for this? (FCC regs?) If so; please post –
it could be very useful. Thanks
>>Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
>>radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
>>radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
>>beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
>>wonder if you could test this in court.
>>Nick
Oh, man! I’m gonna get busted for my garage door opener!
Anyway…on to something in the Real World. I have read (no cites
available) that police radar is only to be used for deliberately
acquiring vehicle speeds. The interpretation was that it’s illegal
for cops sitting in donut shops to leave their radar blasting away
in their cars.
Could be useful…
–kyler
lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>(1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
Ooooooohhhh…that clears it all up.
–kyler
Lloyd R. Parker (lpar…@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
One more *classic* entry for the "Facts a la Lloyd" file!
thanks,
Mark
In article <33ctkk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
> Nick Ciarallo (n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca) wrote:
> : Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
> : radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
> : radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
> : beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
> : wonder if you could test this in court.
> : Nick
> Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
Microwaves ARE radio waves.
>(2) a police officer is not a radio station.
He’s operating one.
>(3) the FCC specifically authorizes certain frequencies for police radar.
They also authorize certain frequencies for, say, ham radio operators, and we
have to identify every so often. Ditto for television, radio, pagers, ad
nauseaum.
–
Javier Henderson (JH21)
hender…@mln.com
lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>Wallace Venable (vena…@faculty.coe.wvu.edu) wrote:
>: >Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
>: Microwaves ARE radio waves, just at a higher frequency.
>Well, no. Different region of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you’re
>going to argue this, you could argue visible light is also radio waves at
>a MUCH higher frequency.
By that logic, a 9-volt battery is transmitting at 0 Hz, right?
If I spin a jumprope so that it goes around 5 times per second, am I
transmitting at 5 Hz? No. Just because something has a frequency
associated with it, it doesn’t mean it’s transmitting radio waves.
Haven’t you ever seen the bumper sticker that says "Hams do it with
more frequency"? Do you think you can pick *that* up on a scanner?
Do you need an FCC license for that?
Dave
–
Dave Bushong
OPEN/image Recognition Products
lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>So, Mark, you want to argue regions of the electromagnetic spectrum?
>Radio waves = wavelength > 0.1 m; microwaves = wavelength > 0.001 m but <
>0.1 m (or, radio = frequency < 3 GHz; microwave = frequency between 3 GHz
>and 300 GHz. This is what we teach in science classes; if 18-year olds
>can learn it, so can you! In chemistry, radio waves correspond to a
>difference in nuclear spin levels; microwaves correspond to a difference
>in rotational energy levels. Two entirely different effects for two
>different regions of the EM spectrum.
So what you’re saying is that there is a point between 2.999999 and
3.000001 GHz where there is a fundamental and quantum change in the
way radio signals behave? I don’t believe I’ve heard that before.
They used to teach (probably in science class, also) that if a human
went over 60 MPH, it would be fatal. Fortunately, some 18-year-olds
couldn’t learn that one either.
Dave
–
Dave Bushong
OPEN/image Recognition Products
>If radio waves were being used, they would penetrate your car, not be
>reflected off it. Radio waves do penetrate your house, for example. You
>can have a transistor radio inside the car with you and it will play, so
>radio waves penetrate your car. Radar (microwaves) depends on reflection
>by your car to work.
Wow, what an analogy ;^{
Beleive it or not, radio waves and microwaves are the same thing
(electromagnetic radiation). Both will penetrate objects and
reflect off objects or some combination of the two.
# : >Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
# : Microwaves ARE radio waves, just at a higher frequency.
# Well, no. Different region of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you’re
# going to argue this, you could argue visible light is also radio waves at
# a MUCH higher frequency.
Well, he’s learning at least ;-}
All electomagnetic radiation is the same. See any
engineering-level physics text…..
It’s not from thin air ;-| that the phrase "DC to Daylight" came
from……
In article <33dosv$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Javier Henderson (hender…@mln.com) wrote:
> : In article <33ctkk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
> : > Nick Ciarallo (n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca) wrote:
> : >
> : > : Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
> : > : radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
> : > : radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
> : > : beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
> : > : wonder if you could test this in court.
> : >
> : > : Nick
> : >
> : >
> : > Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
> : Microwaves ARE radio waves.
> Wrong. See my other posts.
Define radio waves and microwaves.
–
Javier Henderson (JH21)
hender…@mln.com
Lloyd R. Parker (lpar…@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Don Pomplun (pomp…@llnl.gov) wrote:
: : In article <33da5a$…@hpavla.lf.hp.com>, brin…@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle)
: : wrote:
: : {}: Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
: : Don’t I remember a recent PBS or Discovery Channel program that talked
: : about the early days of radar as being down in the few MHz range, and what
: : about the Russian Woodpecker??
: If radio waves were being used, they would penetrate your car, not be
: reflected off it. Radio waves do penetrate your house, for example. You
: can have a transistor radio inside the car with you and it will play, so
: radio waves penetrate your car. Radar (microwaves) depends on reflection
: by your car to work.
*Some* radio waves penetrate your car or your house. Try using a cellular
phone without an external antenna, with it deep down inside the car (not
next to a window).
Besides, penetration of a useful amount of signal does not mean that nothing
is being reflected. All transistor radios have automatic gain control so
you don’t notice quite large (factor-of-10 or larger) changes in signal level.
–
< Michael A. Covington, Assc Rsch Scientist, Artificial Intelligence Center >
< The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7415 USA mcovi…@ai.uga.edu >
< Unless specifically indicated, I am not speaking for the University. > <><
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see them." -C.S. Lewis <
n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Nick Ciarallo) writes:
>Well if you want to take it to the letter of the Law, any cop who uses a
>radar gun is breaking the Law. There is a Federal Law that says all
>radio stations transmitting radio signals must identify themselves at the
>beginning of the transmission and at regular intervals (if continous). I
>wonder if you could test this in court.
Nope. Several years ago the FCC changed the rules so that normal police
radar operation is now covered under their two-way radio license.
Police radar is perfectly legal from an FCC point-of-view.
John
–
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j…@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Mag. Unsolicited email published at my sole discretion
—
The government has 3 new savings bonds: The Stephanopoulos bond with no
maturity, the Gore bond with no interest and the Clinton bond with no principle.
In article <33dp0h$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>If radio waves were being used, they would penetrate your car, not be
>reflected off it. Radio waves do penetrate your house, for example. You
>can have a transistor radio inside the car with you and it will play, so
>radio waves penetrate your car. Radar (microwaves) depends on reflection
>by your car to work.
Would you please have a talk with my walkman-style AM radio? It refuses
to work inside office buildings and warehouses, and doesn’t work real well
inside my car. Maybe if you told it about the penetrating ability of
radio waves, it might straighten up and fly right.
–
Optimists say, "The glass is half full."
Cliff Sharp Pessimists say, "It’s half empty."
WA9PDM We realists say, "Before I decide,
cli…@indep1.chi.il.us tell me what’s in the glass."
Lloyd R. Parker (lpar…@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: So, Mark, you want to argue regions of the electromagnetic spectrum?
: Radio waves = wavelength > 0.1 m; microwaves = wavelength > 0.001 m but <
: 0.1 m (or, radio = frequency < 3 GHz; microwave = frequency between 3 GHz
: and 300 GHz. This is what we teach in science classes; if 18-year olds
: can learn it, so can you! In chemistry, radio waves correspond to a
: difference in nuclear spin levels; microwaves correspond to a difference
: in rotational energy levels. Two entirely different effects for two
: different regions of the EM spectrum.
The FCC defines radio waves as "Electromagnetic waves of frequencies
arbitrarily lower than 3,000 GHz, propagated in space without artificial
guide". (47 CFR part 2.1)
Mark Zenier mzen…@netcom.com mzen…@eskimo.com
In article <Cv0GFx….@wang.com> dbush…@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>So what you’re saying is that there is a point between 2.999999 and
>3.000001 GHz where there is a fundamental and quantum change in the
>way radio signals behave? I don’t believe I’ve heard that before.
Silly, silly Dave. You should know there’s a difference. That’s why
radio frequencies are measured in Hertz, while microwave frequencies are
measured in Hertz.
–
Optimists say, "The glass is half full."
Cliff Sharp Pessimists say, "It’s half empty."
WA9PDM We realists say, "Before I decide,
cli…@indep1.chi.il.us tell me what’s in the glass."
In article <33ctkk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves. (2) a police
>officer is not a radio station. (3) the FCC specifically authorizes
>certain frequencies for police radar.
answers:
1. Microwaves *are* radio waves. What else would they be?
2. *anyone* who transmits an RF signal is considered a "radio station"
3. The DOC although specifically assigning certain parts of the spectrum
to police; also says that radio stations are to identify their stations
when transmitting.
The DOC is the Canadian version of the FCC, but I am sure the Laws are the
same, if not, they are probably pretty close.
Nick
–
***************************************************************************
* Nick Ciarallo *
* SR Telecom Inc. telephone: 514-335-2429 ex: 438 *
* Microwave Group facsimile: 514-334-7783 *
* 8150 Trans Canada Hwy internet : n…@vlsi.polymtl.ca *
* St. Laurent, Quebec hamradio : ve2…@ve2fkb.pq.can.na *
* Canada H4S-1M5 *
***************************************************************************
* Accept no substitutes, *REAL* ham radio lives on 220 MHz! *
***************************************************************************
In <mzenierCv0zqu….@netcom.com> mzen…@netcom.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
>The FCC defines radio waves as "Electromagnetic waves of frequencies
>arbitrarily lower than 3,000 GHz, propagated in space without artificial
>guide". (47 CFR part 2.1)
This is their legal definition. It defines the region of the spectrum
that the FCC regulates.
And it says you will get in trouble with the FCC for jamming police radar
but you won’t get in trouble with the FCC for jamming police lidar.
(jamming police lidar may still be illegal under other statutes)
In article <33dp0h$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>Don Pomplun (pomp…@llnl.gov) wrote:
>: In article <33da5a$…@hpavla.lf.hp.com>, brin…@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle)
>: wrote:
>: {}: Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
>: Don’t I remember a recent PBS or Discovery Channel program that talked
>: about the early days of radar as being down in the few MHz range, and what
>: about the Russian Woodpecker??
>If radio waves were being used, they would penetrate your car, not be
>reflected off it. Radio waves do penetrate your house, for example. You
>can have a transistor radio inside the car with you and it will play, so
>radio waves penetrate your car. Radar (microwaves) depends on reflection
>by your car to work.
But what about –
MILLIMETER WAVE RADARS?!?!?!
Lloyd, please enlighten me!
–
Elizabeth Jones E-MAIL: bajo…@nvl.army.mil
"A home without a cat, and a well-fed, well-petted, and properly revered cat,
may be a perfect home, *perhaps*, but how can it prove its title?" Mark Twain
In article <33do00$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>c b fowler (fow…@esmlsun.gatech.edu) wrote:
>: In article <33ctkk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
>: lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>: >Except: (1) radar uses microwaves, not radio waves.
>: Heh, heh, heh…
>: You payin’ much fer that ed-you-cation, boy?
>Apparently you haven’t gotten one yet! If you’ve got something to say,
>say it. But snide remarks in the absence of anything else is a waste of
>bandwidth.
Now, now. It’s not as big a waste of bandwidth as the ridiculous
statement: "radar uses microwaves, not radio waves."
(Turning to the 5th grade class…)
Now, class, can you tell me where the word radar comes from:
Yes, Ma’am, RADAR derived from RAdio Detecting And Ranging.
Thank you, class.
(Looking back to lpar…@cc.emory.edu…)
Back to you, boy.
c. b. fowler gtri/elsys/esmd
chris.fow…@gtri.gatech.edu
Lloyd R. Parker <lpar…@cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>If radio waves were being used, they would penetrate your car, not be
>reflected off it. Radio waves do penetrate your house, for example. You
>can have a transistor radio inside the car with you and it will play, so
>radio waves penetrate your car. Radar (microwaves) depends on reflection
>by your car to work.
Now quick, everyone move your radar detectors to the outside of your car.
You know, if you keep it inside it won’t detect anything, because the radar
(microwaves) don’t penetrate your car.
–
+—————————————————+
____ _ | Paulo Santos Email: p…@cc.gatech.edu |
|__\_\_o,___/ \____| College of Computing |
([___\_\_____-\’ | Georgia Tech Voice: +1 404 853-9393 |
| o’ | Atlanta GA 30332-0280, USA Fax: +1 404 853-0673 |
+—————————————————+
Javier Henderson <hender…@mln.com> wrote:
>>(2) a police officer is not a radio station.
>He’s operating one.
>>(3) the FCC specifically authorizes certain frequencies for police radar.
>They also authorize certain frequencies for, say, ham radio operators, and we
>have to identify every so often. Ditto for television, radio, pagers, ad
>nauseaum.
and many other broadcasting stations don’t have to repeat callsigns.
Can you say cordless phone? Cellular phone? Baby monitor? CB?
Garage door opener? Car alarm? McDonald’s?
Paulo
—
+—————————————————+
____ _ | Paulo Santos Email: p…@cc.gatech.edu |
|__\_\_o,___/ \____| College of Computing |
([___\_\_____-\’ | Georgia Tech Voice: +1 404 853-9393 |
| o’ | Atlanta GA 30332-0280, USA Fax: +1 404 853-0673 |
+—————————————————+