See my blogQuote:
Originally Posted by carboncopy
www.radaroy.com
I would say start thinking about sending your units in for a tune up next month
Printable View
See my blogQuote:
Originally Posted by carboncopy
www.radaroy.com
I would say start thinking about sending your units in for a tune up next month
Thanks Roy.Quote:
Originally Posted by radarroy
I originally read your reply out of context ; I saw the words ramp-up and update (close) together and got excited!
Well, perhaps the update will include a change to the ramp-up, if we're lucky, although what the update actually includes is not known at this point, as discussed separately.
I am wondering what changes it will in fact include...
If not, I'll simply stick with my X50 for the time being.
It seems almost everyone (I was in lower upstate NY hiking yesterday) is using 34.7 around here (two different states, 3 different municipalities), with some K and even X (I am in NJ) sprinkled in.
The X50 did a nice job picking them up yesterday (I didn't have the 9500i hooked up since I was using my windshield-mounted GPS at the time - both lighter sockets filled on my adapter).
GOL. What i would like to see in the future is having the forward facing test done consistently where minimal reflection can be obtained from radar - has to be tested on the same location as much as possible. By doing so, you will have consistent results. Good example is the Arizona test and the August tests. Looking at the test site 08/07 of the forward facing location, there is very good chance of reflection coming from trees and electrical posts. :wink:
I believe that a lot of users would buy a rd that performed at the top of the test. There would be more of a sense of reliability and security for the end user.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
**********Quote:
Originally Posted by Azonehits
EDIT: I confused the forward facing tests with the straight line sensitivity tests. Thus my following comments don't make sense regarding the forward facing tests, but do make sense when you realize that I was thinking and talking about the straight line sensitivity tests!
On another note, I thought the the forward facing tests were a pretty realistic setup for my area which always has trees alongside the road.
**********
Hi Azone,
I am inclined to believe that any reflections from the trees and electrical posts could have only marginally affected the test results since the radar from the radar gun itself would be much more powerful than the off-axis reflections. Not only that, my calculated radar detector dBm/cm2 sensitivities do rather closely match the lab sensitivities measured by Michael B. On the other hand, I do think that reflections off of the hoods of the radar vehicle, the radar detector vehicle, and the pavement between the vehicles did slightly affect the tests since some radar horns flare downward whereas other radar horns flare upward. For example, the 9500i with its downward flared upside down mounted M4 horn pretty well trumped the Vectors with their upward flared top side up mounted M4 horns.
I hope that in the future GOL will mount the radar guns inside a long PVC pipe, the inside of which is lined with Eccosorb, to prevent radar from bouncing off of the radar vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the two vehicles, and to prevent radar from escaping towards the sides and possibly reflecting off of fairly nearby objects along the side of the test course. Likewise, I would like to see each tested radar detector mounted atop a level piece of Eccosorb covered piece of cardboard in order to further prevent the radar detector from seeing radar reflected off of the radar detector vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the vehicles. I think that this type of test setup would come very close to matching lab measured radar detector sensitivities and would yield extremely accurate results once the distances are converted to dBm/cm2. Obviously just one radar detector would need to be tested by Michael B in the lab so that its lab measured sensitivities could be used to normalize the distance measurements and my dBm/cm2 conversion formulas to the known sensitivity values for that lab tested radar detector. Then my formulas plus GOL's distance measurements will produce extremely accurate dBm/cm2 sensitivity results for all of the other tested radar detectors. How accurate do I think such a test setup could be? I think that the results would be accurate to +/-1 dBm/cm2 or essentially just as good as lab measured sensitivities.
You've done some pretty neat test setups yourself. To me, this sort of stuff is fun. Azone, I bet you enjoy it too. I for one would love to participate in future GOL tests! GOL, hint, hint? :D
Best Regards,
--Michael
[quote="MEM-TEK"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Azonehits
In the forward facing test, the Decatur K band gun was pointed down the street, and not perpendicular to the road. There would be mininal hood reflection from the radar vehicle. As for the reflection from the hood of the radar detector vehicle, I think you're the only one that keeps flogging that theory. :? I see you (MemTek) keep mentioning it in various posts how horn flaring is designed for hood reflection of radar. I don't know. This theory seems a little far fetched, because no 2 hoods are alike, and no 2 mounting locations are the same (for a given detector). How would the detector manufacturers know what car/truck/SUV you're driving? Plus, this theory assumes that hood reflection somehow is of greater importance that simple signal reception by the detector.Quote:
Hi Azone,
I am inclined to believe that any reflections from the trees and electrical posts could have only marginally affected the test results since the radar from the radar gun itself would be much more powerful than the off-axis reflections. Not only that, my calculated radar detector dBm/cm2 sensitivities do rather closely match the lab sensitivities measured by Michael B. On the other hand, I do think that reflections off of the hoods of the radar vehicle, the radar detector vehicle, and the pavement between the vehicles did slightly affect the tests since some radar horns flare downward whereas other radar horns flare upward. For example, the 9500i with its downward flared upside down mounted M4 horn pretty well trumped the Vectors with their upward flared top side up mounted M4 horns.
The guns are currently mounted inside a box that is completely lined with eccosorb (front, sides and rear). Again with the hood issue...in the real world, wouldn't a police car's radar gun bounce signals off the hood, or off the pavement anyway? The eccosorb is simply used to absorb some of the radar's signal.Quote:
I hope that in the future GOL will mount the radar guns inside a long PVC pipe, the inside of which is lined with Eccosorb, to prevent radar from bouncing off of the radar vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the two vehicles, and to prevent radar from escaping towards the sides and possibly reflecting off of fairly nearby objects along the side of the test course.
Quote:
Likewise, I would like to see each tested radar detector mounted atop a level piece of Eccosorb covered piece of cardboard in order to further prevent the radar detector from seeing radar reflected off of the radar detector vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the vehicles. I think that this type of test setup would come very close to matching lab measured radar detector sensitivities and would yield extremely accurate results once the distances are converted to dBm/cm2. Obviously just one radar detector would need to be tested by Michael B in the lab so that its lab measured sensitivities could be used to normalize the distance measurements and my dBm/cm2 conversion formulas to the known sensitivity values for that lab tested radar detector. Then my formulas plus GOL's distance measurements will produce extremely accurate dBm/cm2 sensitivity results for all of the other tested radar detectors. How accurate do I think such a test setup could be? I think that the results would be accurate to +/-1 dBm/cm2 or essentially just as good as lab measured sensitivities.
Once again, Michael B's lab test results are what they are...controlled environment, bench test results. They may or may not correspond to real world tests, or to GOL tests. The GOL tests aren't done to duplicate or validate lab results. The use of eccosorb underneath a detector is in no way a real world test (unless you're driving around with eccosorb in your car :wink:
J/
[quote="jerry540i"]Go Jerry get busy go Jerry get busy :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
now thats in idea. :DQuote:
unless you're driving around with eccosorb in your car
oh man I've been waiting for this forever!!!
http://homepage.mac.com/thestaton/pi...lies/jerry.gif
Now on a serious note, I stand behind the forward facing tests and if I had the chance to do it again I wouldn't change a thing.
The test car never changed, nor did the car with the radar unit inside of it. So the variables stayed the same.
This will not reflect radar signals back but rather forward and does not make any difference at all. I don't understand why the pavement between the vehicles will make a difference regardless of the flared horns. What makes a difference with forward facing tests is reflection or bounced signal that's suppose to go forward but bounces back because of objects in front of the radar gun. Without this reflections, the distance detected by the RD will be shorter. Even if it bounces from the hood, the radar don't reflect back but rather forward unless the front part of the hood is bent 90 degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Ecosorb was used around the radar antenna to decrease strength of radar intensity and without blocking the front of the PVC pipe even if it was lined with ecosorb, you're talking about miles of testing from point A to point B. In your suggestion, you will still have some amount of reflected signal when objects are in front of a radar gun.