Remote installation antenna orientation?

[Veil Guy]

CJ,

Quite correct. I don't run my detectors vertically. But that's not the point. Perhaps you should retread the OP. Looks to me that the gentleman had no choice to and this discussion was about his situation, not mine.

VG

I read the OP, and even though he had no choice its good to be clear on the subject and not cloud it with doubt. It simply wont preform well and he should ideally seek another option.

Only run a RD flat/horizontal, but of course there are acceptations to the rule like if you only see horizontally-polarized photo radar. And if you have any doubts just reference your own forum and distinguished members of the passed. I don't think you would doubt the accumulative knowledge of the professor, MEM-TEK and now Nine in this thread. No need for me or you to test something well known for the passed 7+ years.

In the missing video below it showed MEM-TEK rotating his RD vertically as it was alerting. Once completely vertical it stopped detecting the K band door opener. As he rotated back horizontally/flat it started to detect the K band door opener.
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...light=vertical


Hopefully you will update your posts for future reference even though it seems we scared away the OP.

Some more references from RD.net:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...e+door+openers...

Radar Detector Tests and Reviews by Guys of LIDAR - LASER

Unfortunately that's what happens when the posts are predominately attacking. That's the real destruction of such things. We've all been in the forums long enough to know this and yet some still must insist on doing so.

I think Mike is going to post some clarifying information here.

I am going to revise my post as it relates to the circular polarization comment. Mike tends to refer to circularly polarized radar as "non-polarized" because there is no ONE predominate polarization and hence the reference.

Just like you were "attacked" sometime ago, I didn't let it stand. This forum is going to be run differently today. Such personal attacks or "war with words" is not going to be permitted here. We can debate topics and either agree or disagree but personal insults, etc., only serve to undermine the cohesiveness of the forum.

Mike did indicate this morning that he expects about a 2db loss as a result of the reflector use, but that should be about it. If the gentleman has no choice to make it work, then he has no choice.

In so far as the contributions of some senior members, that's all well and good, but at the end of the day, I'll hang with the senior engineer of RDs. Especially one that is directly responsible for the development of the 3600 that the OP had. I think Mike knows what he's talking about.

VG

Understood, but an experienced members knowledge cant simply be written off with comments like: "Actually, not an accurate account" when in fact it was. Or writing off the fact that i had knowledge of previous testing on the subject that proved a RD run vertically hampers sensitivity VS taking your personal perception of an engineers understanding over known fact that has been documented many times by some of the most respected members of this forum and others.

When we start taking Manufacturers/Engineers word on things is when we loose all that we have worked so hard for. Jut reference the Max and how it was touted the longest range RD ever by the manufacturers and engineers, it has the DB's but its simply no M3 in the real world.

But in the end much of it is semantics anyway and the goal is to help others and share knowledge, they can pull out what they need. I hope to see what Mike B has to say, it may help with the concern of the OP and provide some technical clarity we my be missing as well as the degree it effects its performance, if after all its only 2db that may be acceptable to the OP even if it may not be for us.

I didn't write anyone off, I merely stated that the stated positions (I believed) weren't entirely accurate. I didn't insult the individual either, I addressed the positions made (as they appeared as "absolutes"). I am not discounting others' experiences either. But I do believe there is more to it than those experiences and the subsequent interpretations would otherwise suggest.

But like you indicated, there's theory and then there's real-world. I do expect Mike to be providing his valuable insight on this topic and I don't believe it is going to be as "cut-and-dried" as one individual insisted (that it would be).

I just hope the OP has stuck through all this to actually read it.

VG

[Michael B]

Sorry for jumping in late to this thread as I was having login issues with the site.

In response to the original question, there is a small loss associated with using the reflector and lab tests show this to be approx 2db.

That being said, I have read the comments referring to horizontal polarization, vertical polarization,and circular polarization. Without rehashing the technical details, it has been my experience that a vertically polarized radar detector will respond to circular polarized radar with similar results as the same unit turned on it's side to make it horizontally polarized. Whistler radar detectors from 1980 to 1989 were horizontally polarized. The article VG mentioned is Car & Driver April 1987 where he spectrum 2 won 7 of 10 tests should anyone want to find a copy at a library.

Whistler changed to vertical polarization in 1990 to accommodate a change in the oscillator design to a VCO for Ka wideband coverage.

When encountering polarized radar, a radar detector that is not polarized properly can have a significant loss.

The Multanova 34.3 radar is Horizontal however I am told that some Ramet 34.0 systems are Vertical. I only have the word of customers that test the radar detector and report on their findings when they experiment with the radar detector placement. I have a Multanova but do not have a Ramet so maybe someone that has access to a Ramet system can chime in.

[CJR238]

Sorry for jumping in late to this thread as I was having login issues with the site.

In response to the original question, there is a small loss associated with using the reflector and lab tests show this to be approx 2db.

That being said, I have read the comments referring to horizontal polarization, vertical polarization,and circular polarization. Without rehashing the technical details, it has been my experience that a vertically polarized radar detector will respond to circular polarized radar with similar results as the same unit turned on it's side to make it horizontally polarized. Whistler radar detectors from 1980 to 1989 were horizontally polarized. The article VG mentioned is Car & Driver April 1987 where he spectrum 2 won 7 of 10 tests should anyone want to find a copy at a library.

Whistler changed to vertical polarization in 1990 to accommodate a change in the oscillator design to a VCO for Ka wideband coverage.

When encountering polarized radar, a radar detector that is not polarized properly can have a significant loss.

The Multanova 34.3 radar is Horizontal however I am told that some Ramet 34.0 systems are Vertical. I only have the word of customers that test the radar detector and report on their findings when they experiment with the radar detector placement. I have a Multanova but do not have a Ramet so maybe someone that has access to a Ramet system can chime in.

Thanks Mike!

So the 2db loss is with just a reflector?

In the testing done a RD would go from alerting to not at all when rotated vertically, i guess this could vary from RD to RD as well as test to test. But it did appear to be significant, well significant to an enthusiast like a RedLines off axis compared to an X50.

[PointerCone]

[QUOTE=Veil Guy;913162][QUOTE=CJR238;913159]

I think Mike knows what he's talking about.

VG

Which Mike

[nine_c1]

Sorry for jumping in late to this thread as I was having login issues with the site.

In response to the original question, there is a small loss associated with using the reflector and lab tests show this to be approx 2db.

That being said, I have read the comments referring to horizontal polarization, vertical polarization,and circular polarization. Without rehashing the technical details, it has been my experience that a vertically polarized radar detector will respond to circular polarized radar with similar results as the same unit turned on it's side to make it horizontally polarized. Whistler radar detectors from 1980 to 1989 were horizontally polarized. The article VG mentioned is Car & Driver April 1987 where he spectrum 2 won 7 of 10 tests should anyone want to find a copy at a library.

Whistler changed to vertical polarization in 1990 to accommodate a change in the oscillator design to a VCO for Ka wideband coverage.

When encountering polarized radar, a radar detector that is not polarized properly can have a significant loss.

The Multanova 34.3 radar is Horizontal however I am told that some Ramet 34.0 systems are Vertical. I only have the word of customers that test the radar detector and report on their findings when they experiment with the radar detector placement. I have a Multanova but do not have a Ramet so maybe someone that has access to a Ramet system can chime in.

Reading this I think it's pretty clear that you support VG's theory then, that whether one chooses to mount their receiver vertically or horizontally makes little to no difference in detection range performance against a circularly polarized radar.

Well, what can I tell you (engineer or not) to convince you other than it's my firm belief that you are really....really....wrong.

Anyone subscribing to this advice, who chooses to use a vertical mount with their RD as opposed to the standard horizontal mount, is going to realize a significant reduction in performance against land mobile circularly polarized radars, particularly where hills and curves are involved. Escort wouldn't recommend you do this and neither would Valentine with their detectors unless your biggest threat was in fact a horizontally polarized radar.

In the end it's simply no coincidence that not a single manufacturer of land mobile radars uses horizontal polarity (for the reasons I've already given) even though doing so would make them infinitely harder to detect (remember, we all have vertically polarized horns in our detectors). Land mobile units achieve better range using Circular or Vertical polarity and that is why they prefer it over Horizontal. Likewise, the best performance from a radar detector attempting to detect these land mobile units will be achieved when the antenna is mounted for vertical polarity.

[Veil Guy]

Actually that's 180 degrees out of phase.

It's not that MB supports my "theory" it's that I have been supporting (and reiterating) his experiences (including Whistler's European customers').

Certainly if someone really wants to test it thoroughly (with a variety of RDs) and see either way, I'd certainly be interested to document the outcomes as I am sure he would.

I'm preparing for a trip in a couple days otherwise I would make some runs at some stationery sources with a variety of detectors with a variety of orientations to see. By the sound of your certainty I expect then that any perceived differences would be dramatic and consistently observable.

VG

[Veil Guy]

OK.

I made the time this morning to make a run at a stationery 34.7 source that's around the bend with a Uniden LRD-950 that I have been reviewing. As a relative comparison I also used an STi-R plus as a "baseline." I have four runs total.

1) Uniden LRD-950, conventionally mounted (horizontally) - vertically polarized



2) Uniden LRD-950, conventionally mounted (horizontally) versus forward facing - vertically polarized



3) Uniden LRD-950, rotated (vertically) - horizontally polarized



4) Uniden LRD-950, rotated (vertically) versus forward facing - horizontally polarized




This source is circularly polarized. I've referred to this as MB has as essentially "non-polarized" (even though not technically correct) simply because there is no one predominant polarization. I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions.

To PC's comment, let me be clear. Despite obvious personal issues that Nine and have had for some time, I have a lot of respect for his past and ongoing contributions. No one enthusiast I believe has a better handle on the theory of RD designs and related information. This doesn't mean that we always agree (obviously), but that doesn't change my opinion, despite the tone of some of these exchanges of late.

I believe Nine is correct in theory as it relates to vertically polarized wave propagation versus horizontal and there may very well be clear examples of certain terrains where those differences manifest themselves. Perhaps, for example, in cases where multi-mile detections occur. It just may be with the terrain that most of us drive every day, such things may not manifest themselves appreciably different.

This is the case in the last "disagreement" that we had as it related to 34.7/35.5 detections of an M3 (Redline) versus a V1C. Just as my experiences didn't manifest the differences, the "stew" test did. Without knowing the actual particulars of that scenario, it's not entirely clear as to exactly what accounts for the differences observed, but nonetheless they were observed. And I fully acknowledged it after the fact. Since 33.8 wasn't specifically tested there (and even 35.5 in that case) I am loath to prejudge what the results would be on those bands (or any others).

Perhaps in the upcoming radar detector test being conducted out West this coming weekend, I can add an element of rotation to the detection runs. Maybe something will become apparent there and maybe the ideas that have been put forth by Nine can be demonstrated there. I am certainly open to it and if they do, welcome the additional information that would become apparent. I am not aware of any such test completed that would be so extensive.

In any event, however, I never think it is a good thing to speak in absolutes. Doing that rules out the possibility of accepting any opinions or experiences that may be even partially contrary to such hardened positions and we have seen countless times in the past online that more often than not that can lead to overly contentious discussions, unnecessarily.

Enjoy the videos.

VG

[nine_c1]

Thanks for doing that test VG. Although the difference in detection range was not huge, the comparison does favor the horizontal mount (or orientation of the detector for vertical polarity). Side by sides of the instant of detection below with the Uniden set for vertical polarity on the left and horizontal polarity on the right.

Edit: Ooops.....well, the forum will not accept the images.....sorry.

You are also correct in that this difference will sometimes manifest itself more noticeably depending on distance from the source and the more uneven the terrain as the horizontally polarized portion of the signal will bleed off more energy over greater distance. I know some fellas that have tested this theory with linear polarized radars and they have found that using the gun in it's normal orientation provides the best range.......turning the gun on it's side for horizontal polarity decreases their target range with the gun (while also making it VERY difficult to detect).

In the end though, it's not my theory, rather it is fairly common knowledge in the RF community that veritical polarity is preferred for land to land communications because it performs better than horizontal. So it's a safe assumption that the vertical components of a circularly polarized signal with stay intact over greater distances NEAR the ground and thus we should stick with the stock mounts for vertical polarity.

Antenna Polarization Vertical Horizontal Circular Polarization | ASTRON WIRELESS

[Veil Guy]

Got some more information. Taking the suggestion, I just finished speaking to an engineer at a mfr other than Whistler who specifically deals with these sorts of dynamics (of polarization) of radar detections and here's what he shared with me:

The reason that most police radars are designed to be circularly polarized is for maximizing performance in inclement weather.

It is also possible that some windshield designs could potentially attenuate horizontally polarized components to a greater degree than other components. Windshields that have a greater "rake" (or angle) may affect reception more than those that are less raked. However this is something specifically with windshields, not wave propagation or reception (to it) in general. It was also suggested that externally mounted radars like the OP was referring to, would therefore not be subject to this potential issue.

He could not comment on the idea that vertically polarized waveforms would do better propagating long-distances than all other polarizations and was not aware of any studies showing this with police radar and detector usage.

One suggestion he provided is to find a horizontally polarized radar unit and mount the detector behind the windshield and documenting detections and then repeating with the detector having a clear line of sight (without the windshield in the way) to see if any differences can be noted. This could also be done with circularly polarized radars with the rotations of the detector.

It was also suggested that a radar antenna specifically designed to see further than wider could favor vertical polarizations over horizontal and antennae designed for wider-angle field-of-views could do better with horizontal components. Incidentally the V1's forward facing antenna is specifically optimized more for a longer and narrower field of view than radar horns that may be used by other manufacturers (perhaps the M3?). The rear-horn of the V1 is configured to have a wider field of view (for improved off-axis sensitivity).

There has been some anecdotal evidence that in Arizona, Redflex is utilizing polarized radar in their Ford Escape SUVs. The same sorts of radars that are used in Australia and New Zealand. There have been customer reports that with a V1, drivers may be tending to get better alerting range from the rear antenna than the front one. This may demonstrate the off-axis detection abilities and responses to linear polarized radars.

It is my understanding that RD horns tend to have a pretty good tolerance of 10-12 degrees off of centers. It's quite possible that reception performance variations may be more noticeable at great distance where such off-axis mounting positions could result in large offsets relative to a transmitting source versus a closer encounter like we experience primarily in typical driving encounters.

I think it is safe to say the business of radar detections encompasses A LOT of different and sometimes competing dynamics. As such I think it's really difficult to suggest specific reasons for outcomes when each encounter can be so complicated technically.

Interestingly, I was thinking of one other thing: surface consistency. If around a curve or an "unlevel" ground surface even a horizontally mounted radar detector could be effectively out of "alignment", especially around winding roads and uneven terrains relative to the transmitting sources. At very great distances effects (outcomes) could be magnified, I suppose as well.

I don't purport to be an expert by any stretch of radar. I am a laser guy. Still, I hope this helps movie the conversation forward in a productive fashion, especially for the OP.

VG

[nine_c1]

".....It was also suggested that a radar antenna specifically designed to see further than wider could favor vertical polarizations over horizontal and antennae designed for wider-angle field-of-views could do better with horizontal components. Incidentally the V1's forward facing antenna is specifically optimized more for a longer and narrower field of view than radar horns that may be used by other manufacturers (perhaps the M3?). The rear-horn of the V1 is configured to have a wider field of view (for improved off-axis sensitivity).

There has been some anecdotal evidence that in Arizona, Redflex is utilizing polarized radar in their Ford Escape SUVs. The same sorts of radars that are used in Australia and New Zealand. There have been customer reports that with a V1, drivers may be tending to get better alerting range from the rear antenna than the front one. This may demonstrate the off-axis detection abilities and responses to linear polarized radars."

Again, I have to disagree with the RD engineer on this one.

Horizontal polarization is much better suited for creating a VERY NARROW or tightly focused beam in the horizontal plane (the one we drive on). This is why the engineers that actually design photo radars (like the AGD340 used in the RedFlex) chose a horizontally polarized patch array antenna. The patch array on the AGD340 is very wide antenna which helps keeps the beam very tight for more precise target discrimination across traffic. As with the pyramidal horn, the wider the antenna the more focused the antenna's lobe pattern. A narrow patch array or narrow horn (such as with the V1's rear horn) the wider the lobe pattern. So the point about the V1's rear horn doing a better job of detecting the RedFlex I could believe since that radar is specifically designed to operate off-axis (22 degrees) from the direction of traffic or more specifically targeted across the road.

Here is a good animation of how the Redflex (AGD340) operates.



PS. It's antenna....not antennae, unless we're talking grass hoppers.