On 5 Nov 2003 at 21:24, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:45, David Hobby wrote: > > > > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > My reaction to such behavior was to inform the offender > > > > > sweetly that if he uses that bullhorn one more time while > > > > > people (like me) are trying to sleep, > > > ... > > > > My reaction to s similar incident involved the one and only time > > > > I used an EMP generating device "in the field". I think there > > > > were only two collateral casualties (a cell phone and a pocket > > > > TV), both of which belonged to the offender. And no-one else DID > > > > work out what happened. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > Dawn Falcon > > > > > > Andy-- > > > A good story, but I don't believe in the EMP device that > > > small and unobtrusive. Do you want to divulge some technical > > > details? : ) > > > > It's not precisely small and unobtrusive. It's more no-one had any > > idea what it WAS (and at that time of the night, no-one really > > cared). It was also one-shot, which helped keep the size down. > > > > Andy > > Dawn Falcon > > Andy-- > I've done a little research, and I still don't buy it. > You do mean EMP, and not HERF? (high-energy radio frequency) > Even then, it doesn't sound like something you can just throw > together in the field. > You do seem to be a bit reticent on the details of > such a device, which does not help your credibility. So I've
I'm not "a bit reticent", I plain won't provide details. This is for several reasons. But it was unreliable, one shot and ultimately a gimmick. It wasn't thrown together in the field either. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
