Cell phone jammer on the same freq as wireless mics?
- Thread starterAnonymous067
- Start date
- Status
Anonymous067
Active Member
As I've seen time and time again in forums, if something is asked just out of curiosity or as a hypothetical it's best to make that clear, otherwise expect it to be interpreted it as having been serious and an indication of your intent.
I personally believe that many groups still using 700MHz wireless microphones on the basis that they can't afford to replace them are overlooking the eventual 'cost' of setting an example that knowingly breaking the law is okay if it benefits you.
themuzicman
Well-Known Member
Jammers is Jammers. They don't care what they are jamming. They just jam. 700mHz is 700mHz, it blocks everything regardless of what it is.
epimetheus
Well-Known Member
Not to harp, but it's 700MHz that's being discussed here, not 700mHz. The devil's in the details, and the notation in this case.
Anonymous067
Active Member
Kw....right?
GrayeKnight
Member
Strictly speaking (by IUPAC) (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry), kilowatt is kW. But I can find numerous texts that use kw. (For some reason, Joule and Newton, get caps for their units [J and N], but for some reason, Watt gets dissed and is often lower case.)
For kilowatt-hours, I’ve seen just about all the combinations: kwh, kWh, kw-hr, KWH. All are generally acceptable and most importantly understood and not ambiguous. More importantly, when abbreviations appear in documents, they are usually defined somewhere in the document. (Although in some cases, the reader and writer have the same knowledge and background, and the abbreviation definition may get left out by the writer.)
The case-convention of prefixes by IUPAC, however, must be used. Offhand, I think “m” and “M” are the only duplicate letters. Context means a lot but an errant “m” for an “M” could leave the reader wondering if the writer meant “k”.
In some industries (petroleum and fuels), “M” means “1,000” and “MM” means “1,000,000”. In wastewater, MGD or mgd is million gallons per day. Again, context is everything.
Joe
For kilowatt-hours, I’ve seen just about all the combinations: kwh, kWh, kw-hr, KWH. All are generally acceptable and most importantly understood and not ambiguous. More importantly, when abbreviations appear in documents, they are usually defined somewhere in the document. (Although in some cases, the reader and writer have the same knowledge and background, and the abbreviation definition may get left out by the writer.)
The case-convention of prefixes by IUPAC, however, must be used. Offhand, I think “m” and “M” are the only duplicate letters. Context means a lot but an errant “m” for an “M” could leave the reader wondering if the writer meant “k”.
In some industries (petroleum and fuels), “M” means “1,000” and “MM” means “1,000,000”. In wastewater, MGD or mgd is million gallons per day. Again, context is everything.
Joe
Indeed, context IS everything. MGD=Miller Genuine Draft.
epimetheus
Well-Known Member
SI prefix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Y, Z, P, M are all duplicated on the the other end of the SI prefix scale. With non-duplicated prefixes, capitalization is forgivable, such as K vs. k. But m vs. M is one that should not be confused.
BTW, the symbol for watts is W, not w. KW is acceptable, though not preferred IMO, while kw just makes you look unprofessional to me. kW is correct.
Y, Z, P, M are all duplicated on the the other end of the SI prefix scale. With non-duplicated prefixes, capitalization is forgivable, such as K vs. k. But m vs. M is one that should not be confused.
BTW, the symbol for watts is W, not w. KW is acceptable, though not preferred IMO, while kw just makes you look unprofessional to me. kW is correct.
Here's an interesting one to add to the debate--
YouTube - PCE TV Episode #4 "Wireless Microphones in 700 MHZ" . Shure rep basically says nothing will happen other than 700MHz not working and possibly getting cease and desist orders...
Not voicing any opinion: just saw this online.
YouTube - PCE TV Episode #4 "Wireless Microphones in 700 MHZ" . Shure rep basically says nothing will happen other than 700MHz not working and possibly getting cease and desist orders...
Not voicing any opinion: just saw this online.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps some clarification as the reference to Criss being the "Shure rep" may be misunderstood by many. Criss Niemann is an independent manufacturer's rep and as such the link between several manufacturers, in his case including Shure, and numerous local dealers, contractors and consultants. So his comments represent the views of his company Audio Geer and not those of Shure.
I think that some of his comments are a bit misleading. It is true that the FCC does not have 'police', however field offices of the FCC have the ability to, and sometimes do, monitor, locate and measure transmissions. This is especially true if anyone files a complaint. There is also the aspect with the 700MHz spectrum that some local 'first responder' and life safety organizations are being active in verifying that their frequencies are clear, so a complaint regarding those frequencies may not be uncommon. Also, while the initial result of a valid complaint may indeed be a 'cease and desist' letter, failure to immediately cease operations after receiving such a letter can escalate into large fines.
necomtelecom
Member
DiscoBoxer
Active Member
Anonymous067, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your just exploring for curiosity. I understand the need to work with what you got, within the limits set by the people in charge.
However, in this case (as made very clear above), the law supersedes your superiors in their statements to stick with it. Depending on where you are and what surrounds your facility is going to determine your risk. Say you did either option, run the mics or jam, and you interfered with an emergency communication you are going to be in it deep.
I am not just talking about radio communications and FCC intervention alone in this circumstance. Like mentioned earlier in the post, say you have a doctor or a first responder who cannot receive a call on their mobile or you have a police officer around the block who doesn't receive communication, and the result of these scenarios is the loss of a life, the person in charge of your venue and YOU will be liable in both criminal and civil court. If "John Smith's" mother dies because she could not get help, John is going to sue your organization, the financiers of the organization, and the individuals (like yourself) who knowingly disobeyed the law.
Of course this is a worst case scenario, but is it truly worth the risk? If you feel so, than change the name of John Smith to your own and what would you do then?
My words of advice in your scenario, stop all use of the system and spend your time researching ways to convince your leaders that it is in the best interest of the organization and the public to invest in an alternate plan. If your direct supervisor doesn't listen, you need to escalate and remove your hands as a contributor to the problem.
Likely not what you want to hear, but we are here to help you make the best decision with the information you provide. Good luck!
However, in this case (as made very clear above), the law supersedes your superiors in their statements to stick with it. Depending on where you are and what surrounds your facility is going to determine your risk. Say you did either option, run the mics or jam, and you interfered with an emergency communication you are going to be in it deep.
I am not just talking about radio communications and FCC intervention alone in this circumstance. Like mentioned earlier in the post, say you have a doctor or a first responder who cannot receive a call on their mobile or you have a police officer around the block who doesn't receive communication, and the result of these scenarios is the loss of a life, the person in charge of your venue and YOU will be liable in both criminal and civil court. If "John Smith's" mother dies because she could not get help, John is going to sue your organization, the financiers of the organization, and the individuals (like yourself) who knowingly disobeyed the law.
Of course this is a worst case scenario, but is it truly worth the risk? If you feel so, than change the name of John Smith to your own and what would you do then?
My words of advice in your scenario, stop all use of the system and spend your time researching ways to convince your leaders that it is in the best interest of the organization and the public to invest in an alternate plan. If your direct supervisor doesn't listen, you need to escalate and remove your hands as a contributor to the problem.
Likely not what you want to hear, but we are here to help you make the best decision with the information you provide. Good luck!
Now there's a great quote. Very applicable to many conversations on CB!
- Status
Similar threads
