Any good Cell Phone Jammer Schematics

On 7 May 2006 09:00:54 -0700, "flank" Gave us:

You can shield that room in sheet copper, and copper punched screen (not mesh) on the windows, then sheet the door, and the floor. Or better yet use copper, AND mu metal sheet. Don't forget to tie all the segments together, and ground the whole thing to earth.

You might STILL not do a good enough job to stop a cell phone from working.

Microwaves are very very tiny little buggers.

SHIELDING from an RF source is LEGAL. Do what you will on your property (or purview). You can't erect a blanket around a cell node, though.

Creating a non licensed, not properly constructed RF source in a frequency band allocated for business and structured content only is NOT LEGAL.

What part of the words NOT LEGAL can you not grasp?

What kind of world would we have today were RF sources allowed to be rampant, chaotic, unlicensed gibberish for the last century?

ANARCHY IS LAME. We got as far as we have by struggling together for scientific advancement.

If you are so sophisticated, why can you not see the simplicity of making the mention of phones the first part of every class?

Problem solved.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo.......

Come on, teach'... L E A R N.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 11:54:17 -0700, Don Bruder Gave us:

There is no such animal.

ANY signal would jam more than just where you THINK you have directed it.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 11:54:17 -0700, Don Bruder Gave us:

You're full of shit. Before cell phones, folks had discussions in cars that were even MORE distracting to a driver than a cell call is. The handheld cell phone poses a problem to one's physical capacity to drive, quite unlike a pre-cell-discussion would have done.

Regardless, the crash rates haven't really changed as much as one might think.

Hands free should certainly be allowed, and is no different than paying attention to a GSP Navigator system, which is even visually distracting, to me an even bigger problem.

Which way now, Don Don?

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:00:27 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" Gave us:

Whatever you do... DON'T LOOK!

Of course not, but if ignored, it can get you a fine from the FCC.

Its called Broadband over Power Line

What dictionary, and why do you consider it authoritative?

Do you go around accusing people of rudeness for situations that they did not intentionally cause?

If you're "unintentionally" rude, then you're simply negligent.

But you're still rude.

Thanks, Rich

Merriam-Webster. It's on-line at

RUDE 2C "offensive in manner or action : DISCOURTEOUS" DICOURTEOUS "lacking courtesy" COURTEOUS 2 "marked by respect for and consideration of others"

With respect to the above, what I do or do not do is not relevant to the issue.

The fact is the student was insufficiently considerate of the teacher, the other students or the rules to turn off his/her cell phone. By definition, that is lacking courtesy, which is the definition for discourteous. Rude is defined as "offensive in manner or action : DISCOURTEOUS"

Ed

You haven't understood my point, and I despair of ever making you understand.

A CATV system operator can not only be fined, but they can be forced to shut down all signals on frequencies not used for over the air TV signals till all repairs are made.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:57:21 -0000, Jasen Betts Gave us:

There is no such thing.

There are such things as Faraday Cages, however.

a spark gap transmitter? :)

Bye. Jasen

Oh, we get your point perfectly - it's just that you're wrong. You're claiming that if someone is "unintentionally" rude, that it doesn't count. That's simply not true. In fact, it's doubly rude, because the rudeness is exacerbated by callous negligence.

Speaking of despairing of ever making one understand....

Thanks, Rich

PANSY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why yes, you are. On the other hand your user name suggests that you just can't wait to play "Pick up the soap" in a federal prison.