9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Alright, I just figured out how to fix the AutoLock feature. Its simple as crap.
Alright take a look at this:
We use the Valentines Pre-Technology
But instead of arrows we use it to tell if the alert is real or not
That wouldn't be infringing on Valentines patent, but it would be directional awarness.
I'm sure they could use GPS Technology to tell when the detector has passed the source.
Look at it its so simple, When a V1 passes the source the arrow goes from pointing foward to middle/back. Well if the 9500 can tell if there is another source up ahead, not coming from the rear then it could be as simple as that. It might take some user input by gps marking the false sources but it is a potential fix.
It would take some R&D but I see that being an easy fix. And signal strength detection to override it I see making it potentially perfect. Shouldn't this fix all the scenarios we've come across?
What do guys think?
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YTCD
Alright, I just figured out how to fix the AutoLock feature. Its simple as crap.
Alright take a look at this:
We use the Valentines Pre-Technology
But instead of arrows we use it to tell if the alert is real or not
That wouldn't be infringing on Valentines patent, but it would be directional awarness.
I'm sure they could use GPS Technology to tell when the detector has passed the source.
Look at it its so simple, When a V1 passes the source the arrow goes from pointing foward to middle/back. Well if the 9500 can tell if there is another source up ahead, not coming from the rear then it could be as simple as that. It might take some user input by gps marking the false sources but it is a potential fix.
It would take some R&D but I see that being an easy fix. And signal strength detection to override it I see making it potentially perfect. Shouldn't this fix all the scenarios we've come across?
What do guys think?
You lost me.
It could tell you if you are ahead or behind a pre-recorded false (after it gathers enough data from multiple directions to accurately pin point it).
But I don't see how it would know it's ahead or behind a real threat using the GPS in anyway. Without a front and rear antenna it's impossible to know the difference between you passed it or it moved further away infront.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mswlogo
You lost me.
It could tell you if you are ahead or behind a pre-recorded false (after it gathers enough data from multiple directions to accurately pin point it).
But I don't see how it would know it's ahead or behind a real threat using the GPS in anyway. Without a front and rear antenna it's impossible to know the difference between you passed it or it moved further away infront.
That would take R&D, its possible and maybe they'll need to make a componet that would be able to tell if it is rear or not. Maybe one extra antenna, not for sensitivity but directional awarness.
But to me it would seem this would be one of the best fixes to the problem.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YTCD
That would take R&D, its possible and maybe they'll need to make a componet that would be able to tell if it is rear or not. Maybe one extra antenna, not for sensitivity but directional awarness.
But to me it would seem this would be one of the best fixes to the problem.
This is exactly what VR's patent is, multiple antennas in a single casing for directional purposes. It's not the arrows themselves that are patented, it's how the directional information is obtained.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnet ahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5083129. PN.&OS=PN/5083129&RS=PN/5083129
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Yeah with a single antenna it would be impossible to achieve what your thinking even with GPS...
It was a good thought, but the duel antenna is needed.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Would a side antenna work? Im sure with some brillant minds and r&d I think they could over come it. I'm not sure but i think it could be done.
I hope they come out with a 9500cix that is a much bigger improvment even over the ci. That would be sweet.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
/\ /\ /\
Most likely not... because
A) It would still most likely violate VR's dual antenna patent to locate signals.
B) The algorithms would be exponentially more difficult to manage... whereas a simple front/rear antenna design is much, much easier and more practical.
AKA: It would most likely be inaccurate (much) more often then the V1; the V1 is already inaccurate in the city where I live when it comes to ID'ing the direction of the source... I couldn't imagine a unit with a 'side' antenna.
To be fair to the V1, it is really not meant to tell the direction of the radar-sources origin (which it is often claimed to be), but rather to locate the direction of the strongest source from a signal... which it does extremely well.
The problem is: its more useful to find the origin of the source, rather then the direction of the strongest (source)signal... often times they are one in the same; but there are a fair number of times which this is not the case.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Yeah your idea has completely lost me how this would solve the problem with autolock even if what you're saying can be implemented. How does this address the issue of passing a popular speed trap spot and seeing the same cop, same frequency more than once? What about when a police radar gun and a shopping center door opener happen to share the same frequency quantum?
I will say what I've always said:
With *ANY* filtering strategy there is a tradeoff between reduced false alerts and increased risk of suppressing valid alerts.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdong
Yeah your idea has completely lost me how this would solve the problem with autolock even if what you're saying can be implemented. How does this address the issue of passing a popular speed trap spot and seeing the same cop, same frequency more than once? What about when a police radar gun and a shopping center door opener happen to share the same frequency quantum?
I will say what I've always said:
With *ANY* filtering strategy there is a tradeoff between reduced false alerts and increased risk of suppressing valid alerts.
Your on a whole different concern. All they need to do to fix the 3 time lock or where a cop is sitting in the same place more than once is an option where you can override autolock. Also for it to fix another possible scenario and including yours the gps lock out feature needs to voice an alert anytime it does lock out a false (if it doesn't already).
Alright look at it this way. If the detector knows where the false is (using v1's technology) then after it passes the false it would know if the false is behind you. Well if there is a cop ahead of you then after you pass the false source the detector would know that the false is behind you and since there is cop ahead of you then there would be 2 sources of radar coming from different direction thus autolock would know that it couldn't be the false anymore and would override and start alerting. Plus the signal strength override command in case the false and the cop are really close to eachother. If v1's patent wasn't in effect I would see this being the best solution to autolock's problem.
Re: 9500ci/i/ix Autolock/Learn Fix
actually the GPS on the 9500 series does know when it passes the false. the problem is it doesn't lock out the exact area the false occupies or the exact false, just its frequency. Its also a bit bigger depending on signal strength. They really did a good job with TrueLock it just needs some refining.
The only way I could see them perfecting TrueLock is to make the 30MHz blocks smaller and the lock out area more precise.
The original concern for smaller MHz blocks is that falsest drift and people would complain of the lock out area falsing after they locked it out.
my thought is to have 10-15MHz blocks (instead of 30MHz), this will allow for the 9500 to see more potential radar sources and differentiate them. it will work similar to how Expert mode notifies of multiple alerts when there is and additional source.
It may be as simple as locking out the 10-15MHz block/block's in that specific area and only alerting if there is an additional frequency shown. 1 false will always be 1 and 2 will be 2, but if there is a 3rd where there always is 2 it should alert. They should be alerting to the amount of sources rather than the frequency, and use the frequency as the reference point to identify the false.