From the website of my old buddies at AutoWeek:
Can your signal stop a Bimmer in its tracks?
The Brits can!
Another good reason to buy American.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams (1735 - 1826), December 1770.
Another reason to buy American?
The devices exist here already. Onstar? If they can turn it on remotely they can turn it off. I read an article a few years back about a new "goodie" that was being developed to allow cops to disable a fleeing vehicle by electronic signaling to the onboard computer, ECU or whatever the manufacturer calls it.
They can do it now but it turns off ALL the ECUs in the area, there has to be a signitaure ID for each ECU for it to be selective.
There is another system called Auto Arrestor by Jaycor which will knock out the ingition on any car that drives over a transmitter. I burns out the ingnition modulle.
here is a link to the US Justice Dept's article on it:
Just wait until some Green Party, Eecoterrorist, save the air, tree hugging car hater(s) manage to hack how to stop all the cars with a radio signal!
They already mess with the automated milking machines the dairies have here in the central valley.
Maybe I should start a business disabling such controllers. It's for certain you wont find me paying on star or any other such outfit. If you go for it, you deserve it when they jerk you around (and they will, count on it).
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8GHB @ July 09 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:green'>Maybe I should start a business disabling such controllers. It's for certain you wont find me paying on star or any other such outfit. If you go for it, you deserve it when they jerk you around (and they will, count on it). </span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
<span style='color:blue'>I have to agree. #This is why I wouldn't have LoJack or #OnStar on any vehicle of mine. #I don't trust them. #If I want to disable my car, I can with very little effort [thank goodness my late father taught me about automotive electrical systems at an early age].
Shades of Mr. Orwell... #</span>
73 de Mike, N5RLR
* * * * * * * * * *
"To be is to do." -- Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Sartre
"Do be do be do." -- Sinatra
LICENSED 21 YEARS 1990 - 2011
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5RLR @ July 08 2004,13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8GHB @ July 09 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:green'>Maybe I should start a business disabling such controllers. It's for certain you wont find me paying on star or any other such outfit. If you go for it, you deserve it when they jerk you around (and they will, count on it). </span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
<span style='color:blue'>I have to agree. This is why I wouldn't have LoJack or OnStar on any vehicle of mine. I don't trust them. If I want to disable my car, I can with very little effort [thank goodness my late father taught me about automotive electrical systems at an early age].
Shades of Mr. Orwell... </span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Really? Tell me how do you bypass the ECU and fuel management systems on a modern car?
I the real expanation of what is happening here is a lot less sinister than you think.
The problem is more than likely due to the remote "keys" used to lock and unlock car doors.
In the UK these operate on a frequency 433.92 Mhz, some units use 418Mhz.
The receivers use super regenerative techniques and so are as wide as a barn door, they will respond to anything within a few Mhz of the nominal frequency.
The radar station at Fylingdales I believe uses frequencies in the 400 Mhz region, also, there are various military radio systems which operate in the 70cm "amateur band", which is only allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis in the UK.
So, the problem comes when the receiver in the car does not hear the key which trying to unlock it, due to strong signals from other radio users on adjacent frequencies.
What they are suffering through in the U.K. is a simple matter of the well-known way that RF emitters and recievers operate inthe real world!!
Use of same frequency band by HIGH ERP RADAR transmitter in close proximity to a wide-band receiving device = front end overload AND local field strength overload of the device = failure to operate! That's basic, elementary, common-knowledge amongst any one who enters into a study of RF and receivers.
What is happening there is what happens when POOR FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT and Co-ordination occurs.
Why, you.. as a ham, can demonstrate the SAME thing just by listening to ANY ham repeater in the USA when two signals compete on the same frequency. The 'capture effect' will clearly show what happens when the HIGHER power (or closer) station captures the repeater receiver. Same basic problem the Brits are experiencing over there.
The U.S. has long ago recognized this and has an ACTIVE frequency management program in the USA and possessions. Without going into gory details, the DoD (for example) has STANDING committee of technical experts whose SOLE job is to look at EVERY project that uses RF and make sure that the RF emitters and RF receivers are evaluated in light of OTHER services that will operate in the bands being discussed. Without approval by those guys.. the project doesn't get the 'go ahead' to operate.
The ITU also has working groups that deal with this issue as well. For whatever reason, the Government of the U.K. has placed the military RADAR systems in close proximity TO the ham bands AND the bands used by these vehicle systems.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF THE REALITY OF RF!
BTW.. what THEY are experiencing is ANOTHER demonstration of WHY BPL (here in the States) WON'T WORK WELL as it relates to interference!.
My Condolences to the BRITS.
For whatever reason, the Government of the U.K. has placed the military RADAR systems in close proximity TO the ham bands AND the bands used by these vehicle systems.
The radar system has been there since the 1960s, long before the radio "plippers" for locking and unlocking cars.
The 70cm band always was allocated to radio amateurs on a secondary basis.
The radar in question was supplied by, and probably owned and operated by the US GOVERNMENT, as part of a ballistic missile early warning system.
Oh and as for the "panel of technical experts", they seem to have the best idea....
dump the crap in someone elses back yard!
Since EACH Nation determines how it's going to manage the frequency spectrum that it has been allocated, I drop the entire responsibility TOTALLY in the lap of the Nation's 'experts' as it relates to your problem.
Obviously, your Country's 'experts' either didn't think too long and hard about it or (like most Government bureaucracies) tended to think 'It's just some small thing. We'll deal with it IF and WHEN it becomes a problem!" Plus with the change in focus to MORE 'protection' mindsets, they tend to stuff the military stuff where they want to and deal with whatever problems come up - as they come up.
Sorry you guys got saddled with the problem. It happens here every so often. Even the Government Freq managers get their wires (so to speak) crossed and they issue common frequencies to totally incompatible services. But they tend to rectify it pretty quickly before it gets totally out of hand.
Again, my condolences to you for having to put up with being 2nd fiddle to RADAR systems. It's like trying to operate within a beehive populated by a zillion VERY angry bees all buzzing!
(gee! Now you know what BPL sounds like to us! :D
As one poster mentioned earlier. the USA has a RADAR band just outside of the USA 440 MHz allocation. I know this because one of the first projects I was assigned back in 1985 was to oversee the QA on a 400 KW RADAR that operated 'just above' UHF. Needless to say.. when I'd operate UHF repeaters (or 2M rptrs with UHF links) I'd hear the 'bumblebee buzz' of the RADAR transmitter every so often as it creeped into the passband due to some 'tuning miscues' at the facility where the RADAR was being operated.
Usually, I'd go see 'em or call 'em, ID myself, and tell 'em they were straying out of the band. They knew me and my voice very well and it never took more than a short comment to get the problem fixed. AFter all, they COULD get into big trouble with the FCC for improper radiating adn that would bring the wrath of the Managers upon them. This they DID NOT WANT. So they listened to me.
A couple of times I was out doing some event with a group (usually on a weekend) and that DAMN BZZZZ... BZZZZ.. BZZZZ RADAR pulsetrain would intrude on the repeater. I knew, immediately, what it was cuz the guys at the project liked to fiddle and test on weekends when NORMAL business/Government traffic on UHF was down and the chances of QRM'ing those guys was very very low.
Anyay. our event was getting QRM (through the UHF repeater links being overwhelmed by the high power ERP from the RADAR cuz those guys had jiggered the TXfreq of the RADAR 'just a bit too far' andwere REALLY giving one or two of the link receivers A FIT!). Made it tough to do our event. Some of the guys in our event were kvetching and bitching.
I said,'Never fear! Watch this!. I picked up telephone, called the number at the OP SHACK. <The guys at the op shack all knew me from working with me AND that if I called with a report of interference that I wasn't blowing smoke - plus I was the 'The GOvernment Guy' so they paid attentoin to me for that reason>
I said 'This is Chuck Reville. You KNOW what I'm calling about. CEASE!' and I hung up.
'Miracuously about 1 minute later the noise WENT away, never to return that day!' I swear.. couple of the locals thought I had some connection to the NSA or CIA and would just 'look at me' whenever the topic came up. Naturally, I NEVER told 'em.. WHy bust a possibly useful bubble! ! Right? :D
NOW.. if I could do that with BPL.......