Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,806

    Default False-resistant POP detection - an idea

    I came up with an idea that, if implemented by the RD manufacturers, could possibly reduce or eliminate POP falses.

    Since most POP falses are caused by the LO sweep emissions in certain detectors, and this sweep repeats several times per second, what do the experts here think of an algorithm similar to this to weed out Cobras from BEE IIIs:

    1. When a POP burst is detected, instead of alerting immediately, wait for a period of time (<1 second) to see if the burst repeats.

    2. If it repeats within the time period, do not alert. If it doesn't repeat, then alert.

    About the only drawback is a slight delay in alerting to POP bursts, but if you're POPped and you're the front runner, you're dead anyway. With enough sensitivity, this would allow the detector to pick up POP bursts when other cars are clocked up ahead. Also, the detector could still false if it only picks up one LO sweep from a junk detector. But I figure this would reduce the occurrence of falses quite a bit.

    Another possible drawback, if implemented, is MPH adding a multiple POP burst that emulates a Cobra, causing the detector not to alert.

    VR has a method for detecting POP falses, but it's not perfect. Worse yet, it sometimes junks out real Ka threats (that aren't even POP at all).

    Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
    If I'm passing you on the right, YOU are in the wrong lane!

    If speed kills, how come I'm still alive?

    Active Countermeasures: V1 3.858, Escort Redline, Beltronics STi-R+, LI Dual 7.1x CPU/8.7 Heads (front)
    Other/Backup Countermeasures: V1 3.813 (loaned to friend), Beltronics Pro RX65 M4 6.3
    Vehicle: 2002 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro
    LEO Toys: Kustom Pro Laser II & III
    Encounters/Saves August 2011: Radar 3/1, Laser 0/0


  2. #2
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    Your general idea could work. I would have drawbacks like you mentioned, and would probably be a tradeoff between missing some POP hits vs less falses. But if it leads to more "believable" POP alerts that are taken seriously, it might be a good thing.

    The only problem I see with it is:

    -With the Enforcer and Bee, if the unit is in POP mode and the transmit button is simply held down, it will continuously transmit POP bursts at a rate of 3-4 times a second. Sometimes, it seems easy to accidentally send multiple bursts without even trying. In fact, in the GOL tests, sometimes the botton would be held down too long accidentally, resulting in two consecutive bursts being sent, so we would have to re-do that particular POP hit.

    It stands to reason that if the junk detector is close enough to cause multiple consecutive POP alerts on the good detector, the good detector should be able to filter the false alert using one of the conventional methods at least *some* of the time. But maybe your filter idea could potentially cut down on the falses in times where the other filtering doesn't suppress it.

    Jim

  3. #3
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    6,806

    Default

    I wasn't aware that the MPH guns produce multiple bursts when the button is held. That's probably why the RD manufacturers haven't done something along the lines of my idea...
    If I'm passing you on the right, YOU are in the wrong lane!

    If speed kills, how come I'm still alive?

    Active Countermeasures: V1 3.858, Escort Redline, Beltronics STi-R+, LI Dual 7.1x CPU/8.7 Heads (front)
    Other/Backup Countermeasures: V1 3.813 (loaned to friend), Beltronics Pro RX65 M4 6.3
    Vehicle: 2002 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro
    LEO Toys: Kustom Pro Laser II & III
    Encounters/Saves August 2011: Radar 3/1, Laser 0/0


  4. #4
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    The manual cautions against sending multiple busts in a short time though, saying something like "5% of detectors might be able to detect it" if used in that manner. Probably a moot point now though since most of the MFRs have added POP detection...

    Jim

  5. #5

    Default

    I wonder what speed the CPUs of the detectors that can detect POP are using. Seems to me that a key to catching POP bursts and seperating them from LO emissions would be better resolution of the signal. A very fast CPU would allow closer examination of the signal in the same amount of time. I don't know what the differences are between a POP burst and a LO emission, but I would expect there to be characteristics to identify each.

    just my $.02

    Dave

  6. #6

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
    4 or 8 Mhz
    So wouldn't running a faster processor, say, 100, 200, even 500Mhz, give you the ability to check out the signal characteristics to determine if it is real or false before reporting it? I am not an enginner, so maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but it makes sense to me. It's not like you have to report the POP event as it happens. That 67mS POP can be reported a small time later after signal interrogation. Surely the LO harmonics look different than a POP burst?

    Dave

  8. #8
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    There ARE some things that could be done along the lines of what you mention, but currently the costs would be prohibitively high. But I think in the future as technology gets better and prices drop we might see some of this though...

    Jim

  9. #9
    Professional
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    958

    Default Re: False-resistant POP detection - an idea

    Quote Originally Posted by kpatz
    if you're POPped and you're the front runner, you're dead anyway.
    i thought you couldnt be pulled over unless the leo switched the gun to constant on to obtain a reading

  10. #10
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default Re: False-resistant POP detection - an idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackid343
    Quote Originally Posted by kpatz
    if you're POPped and you're the front runner, you're dead anyway.
    i thought you couldnt be pulled over unless the leo switched the gun to constant on to obtain a reading
    True, but this can happen very fast without much time to slow down: once a POP speed is displayed, a second press of the transmit button puts it into constant on.

    Jim

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Motorola Droid Causing V1 false detection
    By chainsmoker11 in forum Valentine One
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-26-2010, 09:02 AM
  2. Instant On detection idea
    By th3 factory freak in forum Valentine One
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 09:38 PM
  3. false Laser detection with loud car
    By thoe99 in forum Escort
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 05:11 PM
  4. My First POP Detection...Is a False....
    By Stealthcb in forum Whistler
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-24-2006, 10:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •