CCW set off a detector at a store

[Eirerogue]

This has happened to met as well at the local mart.

[stich]

I've never set one off at Wally World but did at Staples once. I didn't buy anything so I know it wasn't their merchandise.

[Justaguy]

Originally Posted by bigjim_610

Merchandise alarms contain a small Tank circuit. It consists of an inductor and a capacitor that reasonates at a specific frequency. Just like an access control badge. RF not magnetism.

Curious as to what gets "deactivated" at the register. How does the circuit frequency get changed?

[akulahawk]

My guess is that the circuit gets exposed to it's resonant frequency at a very high local field strength, part of it then is overloaded and shorts. That way, when later exposed to the specific frequency that it SHOULD resonate at, it can't. Since it then can't resonate, it no longer works. I'm not an RF engineer type at all, but I would guess that deactivation of those things works along those lines.

[Quietpi]

FWIW exposing the RFID reader's receiver to high levels of a particular frequency could "desensitize" it for that moment, but no damage would be done to the circuit. As soon as the high - level RF is removed, the device would return to normal. To cause an RF field to overload a modern receiver circuit to the point of damaging it would require an ENORMOUS power level.

While I don't have specific data, because of the small size of modern circuits, the circuits' resonant frequencies would have to be astronomically high, way up in the gigahertz range. Won't happen.

We really keep coming back to the same place. Lots of crazy things seem to set off the RFID anti-theft devices, but they are not metal detectors. There is no reason for a firearm to set them off. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Indeed.

[Nightingale]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I would say I get the beep about once every 10 or so trips to various stores because the mouth breather who's job it is to demagnetize the security thing forgot.....

I NEVER STOP.... EVER.... Im not stealing anything, so they can pretty much piss off as far as I'm concerned. If they try to detain me, they are going to have to deal with a pissed off attorney... If they try to detain me with force, Im going to own the store.

If it's one of the stores with the security tags that they're supposed to remove at the register, I stop! Otherwise, you just have to go back to the store before you can wear the clothes. The beeps are a nice warning that someone forgot to remove the tag.

If they're just magnet tags, I don't stop either.

[CenterX]

I works on EM signal saturation - Read more at

HowStuffWorks "Electromagnetic System"

There is a slight chance that some exotic blends off metals or a small metal part in a plastic frame could saturate to provide a signal.
It has never happened with me.

What are you all tot'n when this happens?

Maybe its is a Glock thing?

[Desert_Rat]

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


HUH? Me was thinking you said I is lieing. So now I'm not sure.
Maybe I'll just go into the same store to test it out.

[Hogxtz]

I always stop untill I can square the situation with an employee and prove the mistake is on them. I certainly do not need a loss prevention agent tackling me in the parking lot. I thought a good citizen with a permit always does what he/she can do to avoid a negative situation. I am not looking for law suit, or any other kind of trouble or conflict.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Desert_Rat

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


HUH? Me was thinking you said I is lieing. So now I'm not sure.
Maybe I'll just go into the same store to test it out.

No. Not lying. Just a classic logical fallacy.

[Quietpi]

Originally Posted by Desert_Rat

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


HUH? Me was thinking you said I is lieing. So now I'm not sure.
Maybe I'll just go into the same store to test it out.

Oh, no! "After this therefore because of this" is one of the classical logical fallacies. It is a type of faulty reasoning, to be guarded against. Not lying at all. But can lead you to wrong conclusions. It means this: Just because one event follows another doesn't mean that the first event caused the second.

A classic case is the guy who has cancer, and has probably had it for a long time. Then he goes to the doctor, and the next thing you know he dies. Therefore, going to the doctor can kill you. An awful lot of people really buy into this sort of faulty reasoning.