The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Robert Baer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: Tracker implant for children - Real or Fake?
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D7AFA3D.D1C3B84A@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:47:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 17:47:34 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Mike Poulton wrote:
> On 08 Sep 2002, Robert Baer said:
> > (1) Absolutely *no* battery needs to be included!
> > energy can be directly derived from the fluids in the body.
> That requires that at least one electrode dissociate and go
> solution. That would put metal ions into the body in high
> concentrations, and almost certainly cause local tissue damage.
> Furthermore, the current flow would be noticeable and
> bothersome. I
> don't think the FDA or any other health organization would ever
> such a device.
** Metal ions are not needed, and a few microamps max i think would be
below noticeable threshold where pain receptors exist, and there are few
*inside* the body.
> > (2) Pulsed power needs to be only a few tens of milliwatts
> (but could
> > be as high as 100mW if need), as it is not difficult to
> > microwatts elsewhere.
> He specifically indicated that it is to operate on existing
> (cell phone) bands. Cell phones have good antennae, are not
> shielded by
> human tissue, and still need a watt or so -- and they don't
> even work
> well in some buildings. With a dipole on one end and a yagi on
> other, 100mW is NOT receivable for more than a few miles.
> obviously not enough. Cell phone repeaters are nowhere near as
> good as
> a decent yagi, and thus have even less range.
** Miles of detection is not necessary, especially for a (semi) stealth
transmitter. The desigh tradeoff for "stealth" is a minimum power to
achieve specific minimal goals (1=identification, 2=reasonable chance of
location in specified area).
> > (3) Antenna length can be very short compares to a
> wavelength and
> > still
> > radiate a reasonable amount of energy for "short-range"
> > Not fake; see my other response above.
> We are not concerned with short-range *detection*. We need
> medium range
> *reception*. The signal has to be clearly receivable (not just
> detectable) by existing cell systems in pretty much any
> location. In
> other words, it needs performance comparable to or better than
> phones. Since phones have a watt and a darn good antenna, it
> stands to
> reason that a tracker with an implanted antenna needs much more
> than a
** Sorry, this is *not* stealth in any sense.
If you want zero power for satellite detection, then use a brilliantly
colored, large piece of cloth attached to a hat on the victim.
10 feet square area is the published commercial resolution; i leave it
to your imagination as to how much better the actual (military)
> Mike Poulton
> MTP Technologies
> Not only do I speak for my company, I AM my company!
> Live free or die!
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup