Most Radar systems are built with extremely sensitive receivers and
extremely high gain antennas that can detect things like a double echo which
means it can receive the signal that was generated by itself and then
bounced back to the antenna not once but multiple times. In many cases is
also designed to sit there in a passive mode to detect other signals and not
give out it's own position which gives an enemy an easy target to attack.
Some of it is used to direct weapons to it's proper targets, some if it as
navigation aids for military aircraft the just like civilian air travel. Do
you want to let WISP's be responsible for disabling some of that technology?
Please do not get this list started thinking that WISP's and or the
manufacturers are much smarter in radio engineering than a government agency
who has spent billions of dollars in research and construction of radio
systems that are partially responsible for the incredibly cheap radios we
have today. Most of what we use on the air today has been in use or
manufactured in one form or another by the government since the 60's. You
haven't heard of it because for most of those years it was considered part
of a national secret and any of us who did know about it are not allowed
(including the manufacturers) to say a thing about it. RF Engineering,
complex radio systems and digital modulation techniques have been around for
much longer that you realize, where do you think many of the geniuses who
built this stuff got their experience in the first place?

Thank You,
Brian Webster

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 2:32 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules ?????

I think everyone is missing the real problem with 5.4ghz.....

How big of a piece of crap is our military radar that a $49 minipci
wireless card and a homemade pringles antenna can render it useless???


Matt Larsen

J. Vogel wrote:
> Fair enough. I might have been a little on the touchy side myself there.
> In the context of
> what I had been reading, particularly a comment about how the use of 5.4
> was going to
> require someone to install another phone line just to handle complaints
> from the DoD,
> coupled with the current excitement around the list that some WISPs have
> *gasp* been
> using un-certified gear, it appeared to me that your question might have
> been motivated
> by suspicion in that regard.
> Thanks for the clarification.
> John Vogel

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to