User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Talk - Cell phone jammer

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Initial edits

I wrote a lede in CZ style; the lede contains the name of the article, and does not have a heading preceding it.

This will need copy editing. Acronyms should be defined when first used.

Legal aspects of interference with cell phones needs to be discussed. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd email a note on this first, but your email function doesn't seem to be enabled. I see the only reference placed on the original article is an external link to his store. First, we avoid external links inline, and I'd be happy to help format a reference to a specific point at the site. Second, and a matter of more concern, we do have a no-self-promotion rule, and only referencing your own business falls under it.

Speaking as an Engineering Editor with knowledge of this particular subject, I am finding it difficult to understand some of the text. May I help try to clarify it? This is not a matter of understanding how TDMA works, but the prose. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

as the base post is placed at vaster length from the jammer than the cell phone and that's why the signal from the tower isn't as substantial.

Perhaps this could be phrased as an inverse square or inverse cube effect? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the original poster intend to continue work on this article?

Speaking as a Military and an Engineering Editor, the latter parts need both much clearer writing, and then more technical detail, if they are to be minimally acceptable. While the link to his own store has been removed as self-promotional, I am somewhat concerned that they only ship from Asian countries and the legalities of the cell phone jammer in the West have not been at all addressed.

Jammers with a range of miles or kilometers really would not seem to have legitimate private applications, including protection against improvised explosive devices. To render safe IEDs controlled by cell phones, one must understand both the cellular technology, but also the detonation system, or it may trigger in one's face. Home-made jammers used in Iraq and Afghanistan, without current intelligence on IEDs, have at times made the situation more dangerous. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Picking up on Matt's correction to "Whilst with other radio obstructing, cell phone jammers freeze cellular phone employment by sending radio waves on the same band that mobile phones function. This stimulates plenty of noise while communicating between cellular phones and towers to leave the telephones useless."

My concern is that this, aside from being hard to read, is not technically correct other than in a subset of cases. Jamming is the electronic attack subset of electronic warfare, and "barrage" jamming with power alone is usually the least desirable method. If the particular cellular system uses spread spectrum or frequency agility, it is quite resistant to high-power jamming. Effective attacks are far more likely to disrupt the control signals or multiple access mechanism (TDMA, CDMA, FDMA).

Unless the original poster starts to correct errors, I'm going to make an Editor Ruling that there are so many inaccuracies, possible self-promotion (and questionable ignoring of legality), and a desperate need for copy editing to make this a non-viable article. I added some text that could easily move to electronic warfare. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)