Difference between IO & QT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

LOL! You make the same point that I attempted to make, which is that you really can't put a hard and fast time definition on QT, because the people doing it are, well... people, whose timing is not perfect. Any definition of QT that attempts to put a solid number on it falls short. I've had detectors -- including V1s -- take three or four seconds to alert to a trigger pull. There are more factors to consider than the radar source itself. You also have to consider where in the frequency scan cycle the RD is when the trigger is pulled.

---

LOL. Now your saying QT is IO, CO and all of the above. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

While generally 3 seconds and below is a faster then recommended (QT), one second and below fits our definition best.

---

"Recommended" by whom? Dude, you can't keep spouting this made-up propaganda until you find us a credible technical or LE source, in writing, that backs it up. If this is just your personal opinion of how LEOs ought to operate, then admit it to everyone. If you have an authoritative source that PROVES that IO shots are officially recommended to be greater than 3 seconds, we need to see it now.

---

Here you go SS. ;) Any proof on your side with regards to your QT's?
"MTAM" page 27.

"The radar officer is on patrol on a four lane divided
expressway (65 mph max.) using moving mode radar with Standby (RF
Hold) switch in the off position. A medium size vehicle approaches from
the opposite direction, catching up with and beginning to pass another
medium size vehicle. The officer visually estimates the target vehicle
speed to be 80 mph and turns the Standby (RF Hold) switch “on”. A strong
audio tone consistent with the estimated 80 speed is heard and a reading
of 81 appears in the target window. Immediately thereafter the officer
observes the front of the target vehicle dip abruptly, the vehicle appears to
brake abruptly, the audio drops quickly and the reading in the target
display window drops rapidly from 81 to 65. The patrol window displays
63 and the calibrated speedometer reads 63. The officer notes the obvious
visual deceleration of the target vehicle corresponding exactly with the
drop in audio and target display window read-out and concludes that the
radar was tracking the target vehicle and not the other vehicle. Target

identification is complete and the officer can take enforcement action."

"The operator must track the target vehicle as long as possible

to be certain of a valid target identification" Page 13

"It is also necessary that the tracking of the target vehicle take place over a

reasonable amount of time, so the operator knows it is not a spurious reading." Page 26

I will have to delete what's quoted here in the next 48 hrs. If you need it later, just let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

LOL. Now your saying QT is IO, CO and all of the above. :D

---

I'm saying that any of the above can be misinterpreted as QT. If you're not the one pulling the trigger, then you really have no way of knowing. All you have to go on is your RD's alert, which is not always an accurate reflection of how long the shot was. If the officer pulls a five second shot on you, and your detector only gives a quick beep, then that's QT, as far as you know.

Quote:

---

Here you go SS. ;) Any proof on your side with regards to your QT's?

---

Proof of what? :hmmmm2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

LOL. Now your saying QT is IO, CO and all of the above. :D

---

I'm saying that any of the above can be misinterpreted as QT. If you're not the one pulling the trigger, then you really have no way of knowing. All you have to go on is your RD's alert, which is not always an accurate reflection of how long the shot was. If the officer pulls a five second shot on you, and your detector only gives a quick beep, then that's QT, as far as you know.

---

I see what you mean. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knighthawk

Here you go SS. ;) Any proof on your side with regards to your QT's?

---

Quote:

---

Proof of what? :hmmmm2:

---

Proof about use of your QT claims and use of radar time frame that's all around this forum other than your authoritative source.

I haven't made any claims of time frames for QT. In fact, I've been saying that you can't realistically pin it down to any particular time frame. Any number we apply to it, like 1 second or less, is just arbitrary and may not accurately represent actual practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

What that says is:

1. Quick trigger results in consistently accurate readings.

2. The RADAR unit itself computes what your "reasonable time" is to get an accurate reading, not you.

3. You do not have to trigger for any specific or prolonged period of time.

4. Quick trigger is not a factor in inaccurate readings.

5. All that is necessary to accompany your Quick Trigger readings is your visual estimation and audible tracking.

There you have it, folks. Straight from the authoritative source. This whole nonsense about QT being "illegal", "not allowed", "not recommended", "against the book", or any of the other hyperbole that the Escort fans keep pulling out of their backsides is a lie. It's a lie perpetrated by Escort and their fanboys in order to gloss over their serious inadequacies, rather than just fix them.

---

I'm talking about this post above. Because even when you and GOL tested the escort products, most of escort's product detected short burst of radar from half a second to a second. So you know very well from controlled testing what the possible time frames are. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your statement is telling me that what is written in bold letter is a lie about QT. This is what I was trying to drive at for you to show proof that it is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

I haven't made any claims of time frames for QT. In fact, I've been saying that you can't realistically pin it down to any particular time frame. Any number we apply to it, like 1 second or less, is just arbitrary and may not accurately represent actual practice.

---

RD users made up the term Q/T.... THEREFORE RD users get to define what it means

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riptide

RD users made up the term Q/T.... THEREFORE RD users get to define what it means

---

I don't care what others definition is. I care about a specific RD user's definition, how he preaches it and his beliefs about it. :p

We've already established all of that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're trolling for here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

We've already established all of that, so I'm not sure exactly what you're trolling for here.

---

I was responding to RipTide's post and look who's talking about trolling. I'm sorry SS but you have not established it all not even once since you registered as a member here. All your statements are from quote your "authoritative source" without reference or any useful links to back it up. You have not given any proof about your accusation based on my request from you in post # 75.

Prove it and post a link or reference.

The definition of QT is subjective on this forum. I'm not sure why you are asking SS to back up his claims. We might as well ask any of us who define quick trigger in any way to back up our claims as well. :confused: