PDA

View Full Version : Better than a Valentine One?



BlueFlare77
11-02-2005, 04:34 AM
Imagine a....

Radar/Laser Detector with 5 receiving antennas. A antenna on each corner of the car and one concealed antenna on the roof. The purpose of having these antennas is to triangulate the position of the radar origin on the horizontal and the using the roof antenna to determine if the radar origin is above ground level. The detector is integrated into a aftermarket navigational system like a Pioneer AVIC-N2 with XM TrafficUpdate, which would pinpoint the position of the radar. A laser shifter would be connected to the detector and activated when it sense a laser threat.

....hell would freeze over. I think law enforcement might have to pay the inventor NOT to sell this.

Dudley DoRight
11-02-2005, 04:41 AM
Unless it could do all the stuff you described above...and have you react and slow down to the limit...all in less than 1/3 of a second...it would be a waste of time...cause the laser would be flashing your speed...ain't gonna happen!

xwarp
11-02-2005, 09:30 AM
sorry, but i have to laugh at this one.

why triangulate the signal for a location? if i used a radar detector, i would not care about where the signal was coming from, i would just care about whether the signal was a real radar gun and not someone's cheapy spewing the local oscillator all over the place.

you'd be better off using some HARP cloth.

BlueFlare77
11-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Unless it could do all the stuff you described above...and have you react and slow down to the limit...all in less than 1/3 of a second...it would be a waste of time...cause the laser would be flashing your speed...ain't gonna happen!

Not necessarily. The scenario you have described above is a "best case scenario" for an officer. Imagine the sensitivity and accuracy of 5 antennas. Valentine 1s and Passport 8500 X50 will pick up a signal one to two miles out and they only have one or two antennas. If a LEO is sitting on the side of a highway working a "speeding" detail, chances are he would use the radar at least once in 4 mile stretch of cars - thereby giving away his position.

...and don't forget. It includes a laser shifter so the person has about 10 seconds or more to slow down.

BlueFlare77
11-02-2005, 01:10 PM
sorry, but i have to laugh at this one.

why triangulate the signal for a location? if i used a radar detector, i would not care about where the signal was coming from, i would just care about whether the signal was a real radar gun and not someone's cheapy spewing the local oscillator all over the place.

you'd be better off using some HARP cloth.

That's why you need multiple antennas and a bogey counter. If you could triangulate the position of each and every signal, it would give you a better idea of whether it is a real threat or not. For example, automatic doors in a shopping mall could trigger an X band alert. If you knew that the signal was coming from the mall, then its likely that it is a false.

However, a bogey counter would help in this case by a lot. If the bogey counter reads "two", then that means there are two separate signal generators. The second one could be a sneaky officer trying to use the automatic door to cover his real radar's signal. It would confuse an ordinary radar detector, but not this one...

xwarp
11-02-2005, 01:42 PM
how much do you know about radar and laser?

generally speaking, i speed, but it's usually with the flow of traffic. i.e. 45 in a 35. but i usually don't go that fast if i'm on the road by myself or if traffic is sparse. same in a 55, or whatever.

5 antennas is pretty much useless unless you are trying to pinpoint the radar gun's origin and then go into autopilot tracking it. but let's talk about that. typically, from what i know of radar guns, they are generally line of sight, and cannot give true readings if the angle of incidence is too great. (a large angle of incidence generally returns a slower reading). 5 antennas to receive multiple signals, and then the processing time goes up resulting in slower reaction time. so to sum it up, elevation and azimuth data, (which is what the extra antennas would be used for), would be a waste.

with the lasers, how far out do you expect a "shifter", as you call it, to transmit? the circuitry to drive these diodes would have to pretty hefty for the duty cycle you are presenting, not to mention that the detector would have to mimmick the received pulse train and then shift it, and then overdrive the original return reflected by your car. (and given this is done within a 1000 ft. distance).

i think you are wishful thinking. why don't you just follow the flow of traffic and be done with it.

BlueFlare77
11-02-2005, 02:01 PM
how much do you know about radar and laser?

generally speaking, i speed, but it's usually with the flow of traffic. i.e. 45 in a 35. but i usually don't go that fast if i'm on the road by myself or if traffic is sparse. same in a 55, or whatever.

5 antennas is pretty much useless unless you are trying to pinpoint the radar gun's origin and then go into autopilot tracking it.

You can't autopilot track it if the radar is on "hold". However, knowing the position of the origin is a huge advantage.

but let's talk about that. typically, from what i know of radar guns, they are generally line of sight, and cannot give true readings if the angle of incidence is too great. (a large angle of incidence generally returns a slower reading). 5 antennas to receive multiple signals, and then the processing time goes up resulting in slower reaction time. so to sum it up, elevation and azimuth date, (which is what the extra antennas would be used for, would be a waste).

Processing time on a simple device like this (relative to modern day computers) is nothing to worry about. In addition, knowing for a mile or two ahead of what a Valentine 1 or Passport 8500 X50 is a huge advantage by itself anyways.

with the lasers, how far out do you expect a "shifter", as you call it, to transmit? the circuitry to drive these diodes would have to pretty hefty for the duty cycle you are presenting, not to mention that the detector would have to mimmick the received pulse train and then shift it, and then overdrive the original return reflected by your car. (and given this is done within a 1000 ft. distance).

Escort ZR-3. That is all.

i think you are wishful thinking. why don't you just follow the flow of traffic and be done with it.

Who ever said I was not following the traffic flow? This was a hypothetical question, and yet you rush to assumptions and conclusions...

A radar detector does not mean you're guilty of speeding. Period. By using a typical officer's logic that a radar constitutes prima facie evidence, couldn't we say that anyone who buys a sports car is guilty of speeding? Possessing a sports car could be prima facie evidence. Otherwise, what is the need for a vehicle that can do a quarter mile in 13 seconds and trap at over 110mph?

xwarp
11-02-2005, 02:31 PM
and since i am assuming......

i'm assuming you are not going with the flow of traffic because of the "context clues".

i.e. "imagine this.....,(followed by a pretty detailed picture of your idea, then ending with,)....law enforcement might have to pay the inventor NOT to sell this."

all this on a forum whose membership is primarily LEOs.

i dunno. i am an elctronics technician and somewhat specialize in r.f.

i live two houses down from an officer, but i don't ask him his thoughts about something used to defeat the tools of his trade.


By using a typical officer's logic that a radar constitutes prima facie evidence, couldn't we say that anyone who buys a sports car is guilty of speeding?

wow....if that's the typical officers logic, then we all are in trouble.


Otherwise, what is the need for a vehicle that can do a quarter mile in 13 seconds and trap at over 110mph?

the speedo in my MR2 shows 150......you think i'll ever push it to that? nope, don't see the "NEED".

kinda like i tell the wife when she drives, just because the lane is 8 feet wide, it doesn't mean you can surf it all.

JHoek
11-02-2005, 04:13 PM
Hahaha...I love pulling over people for speeding who have radar detectors....instant ticket, no deals! Some of them argue that I can't give them a ticket b/c their detector did not go off, therefore, I didn't use Radar.

Dumbasses!

BlueFlare77
11-03-2005, 12:01 AM
Hahaha...I love pulling over people for speeding who have radar detectors....instant ticket, no deals! Some of them argue that I can't give them a ticket b/c their detector did not go off, therefore, I didn't use Radar.

Dumbasses!


Hahaha. Around my area, people would be dumbasses for not using a radar because not using a radar has not translated into warnings even with a good attitude. So what's to lose?

HailStorm
11-04-2005, 02:58 PM
So what's to lose?
The $350 you spent on the detector?

xwarp
11-04-2005, 07:10 PM
The $350 you spent on the detector?

LOL! that's too funny.

cmelton_4
11-04-2005, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=BlueFlare77]Imagine a....

Radar/Laser Detector with 5 receiving antennas. A antenna on each corner of the car and one concealed antenna on the roof.


Sounds like the start of a Sci-FI show. Even if they had that radar dectector, so what. It's just a traffic ticket, drive normal and be polite = no worries

rpd1794
11-04-2005, 09:56 PM
Bring that thing to Virginia....then when you set off my VG-2, you can get not only a speeding ticket but one for possession of a radar detector. And if I'm feeling froggy, we can disconnect and remove it so I can hold it for court.

BlueFlare77
11-05-2005, 07:20 PM
The $350 you spent on the detector?

Versus +$350 someone would pay out in tickets and insurance from getting caught. I'm sure to them its economics at play. Unfortunately, economics and safety do not necessarily go hand in hand.

BlueFlare77
11-05-2005, 07:24 PM
Bring that thing to Virginia....then when you set off my VG-2, you can get not only a speeding ticket but one for possession of a radar detector. And if I'm feeling froggy, we can disconnect and remove it so I can hold it for court.

Actually, it is going to be quite difficult for you to disconnect and remove it because it is custom installed in the vehicle. The antennas might be hidden around the bumper area, its not a simple unit you can just disconnect like a V1 or a 8500 X50. Think of it like a Escort SR-7, but even more advanced.

In addition, if it is integrated into a navigational system using custom programming, how much money and effort do you think it'll take the state to reverse engineer the programming and circuitry of the custom head unit, for the same violation that someone would get for operating any other radar detector?

My guess is that the state wouldn't even pursue the case because its not worth the effort or time.

BTW, most high end radar detectors are VG-2 invisible. V1 has been tested to be invisible to 400feet for Spectre III.

Welpe
11-05-2005, 08:56 PM
Why have all that goofy crap when it is easier just to obey the law? :confused:

rpd1794
11-05-2005, 11:04 PM
Well, gee, if it was THAT difficult to remove, I guess the whole car would have to go to impound then.

Despite the cries of "having a radar detector doesn't mean you speed", there is only one reason to have one. In the end, countless numbers of detector toting pinheads have been caught with either instant on or the old reliable, the pace.

And you'd be surprised how many "high end" detectors will set off the VG-2...

BlueFlare77
11-05-2005, 11:43 PM
Well, gee, if it was THAT difficult to remove, I guess the whole car would have to go to impound then.

Despite the cries of "having a radar detector doesn't mean you speed", there is only one reason to have one. In the end, countless numbers of detector toting pinheads have been caught with either instant on or the old reliable, the pace.

And you'd be surprised how many "high end" detectors will set off the VG-2...

Let's play out the impound scenario. PO detects a working radar detector in a car A. He visually searches the vehicle does not know where the radar detector is. He must write a citation/issue a complaint if he is to impound the vehicle. The car is in the impound but the municipal police does not have to resources to reverse engineer the circuitry and programming of a custom system to actually prove that, in fact, it IS a radar detector, by the court date on the complaint. Charges are dismissed and the vehicle is returned. The owner of the vehicle files a civil suit against the municipality for compensation of additional expenses while he was denied access to the vehicle The owner files a complaint against the local PD if any damage was done to the vehicle while they "investigated" it.

In the end....local PD loses out.

But of course this is a hypothetical situation. How many people are actually going to have the resources and commitment to mess with the PD like this? I'm sure they can win, but to win, it takes a lot of resources.

xwarp
11-06-2005, 12:37 AM
for reference:

a feedhorn looks like this:

http://members.cox.net/bwlevy/radar.jpg

to have these feedhorns mounted on all corners of the car would be impractical. the biggest problem would be sheilding and loading. the cable used would load down the signal.

to run all this into a system to be displayed onto a navigational display would be an option that would cost as much as having a jacuzzi put in the back of an escalade.

and even if the car manufacturers installed something like this, the cost of firmware upgrades to keep up with radar gun manufacturers would be pretty high.

radar detector=waste of money.

oh, and i'm sure the mechanics that maintain the radio systems in the patrol cars could easily identify cable used for 10gig transmission cable.

alkalinerephlux
11-08-2005, 07:59 AM
Hey blueflair77!!! keep on it! I'm with you, laws on speeding are a bit ridiculous. I make a vow to myself that when i become a police officer I will never write citations for just speeding (on main roads, and highways). Ive done 145 for about ten seconds on a sunny afternoon on the highway with no one around, with good tires and brakes and suspension. I wasnt endangering anyone elses life, I don't see a problem with it.

Even though 145 is fast, when we talk about say...60 in a 45. What is the big deal, we all know cars can handle those speeds. If some dumbass who isnt paying attention causes an accident because they are speeding then give them a ticket!!!

It's all about buildling revenue.. trust me