|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
I will admit that yes, if a detector is always going off, then it makes you less likely to notice it when a cop is really ahead. But I'll take the sensitivity anyday above a detector that doesnt tell me there's a cop until the last minute when his signal stregth is nearly 100%. By then its usually too late.
I'll also note that I've never seen a cop use X band radar ever anymore. I safely ignore X band. K band is shared between a majority of cops and automatic doors (at least in Michigan) and Ka band has so far been solely cops. I have yet to see anything but a cop use Ka band in Michigan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw:
I'll also note that I've never seen a cop use X band radar ever anymore.
I never did until I moved to Iowa.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
actually:
To clarify your wave in a pool theory:
You are assuming that there is only one wave.. created by a ball, or a hand, or what have you..
but because radar is not ONE pulse, but (as an example: the AN/SPS-49 surface search radar works on the band of 850 to 942 MHz
So.. if your theory were to be more accurate, you would need to state that I (the radar detector) would need to be able to identify what created the wave, by COUNTING the waves, and how far apart they are (signal processing, and frequency determination.)
So, yes.. the FCC has set aside certain frequency ranges for RADAR, but if the manufacturer can make the detector MORE selective, then you can be able to further eliminate "false signals" from real ones. (there is a difference in selectivity and sensitivity.. ask about that and I would be glad to provide details on the simple RF radio block diagrams, particularly the RF selectors) for now, suffice to say that selectivity is the ability to "zoom in" on a certain freqency, and sensitivity is the ability to pick up a weaker signal.
most police RADAR work on microwave levels
While there are some radar bands from 1,300 to 1,600 MHz, most microwave applications fall in the range 3,000 to 30,000 MHz (3-30 GHz). X-Band resides at 10.6 GHZ
X Band
Developed during the 1950s and in use since about 1965. X Band ranges between 10.5 and 10.55 GHz (10.525 with a tolerance of 0.025), compared to other bands it has low frequency and high output. This makes it particularly easy to detect, in fact it is possible to detect at up to 4 miles away although it's own useful range is obviously a lot less than this. Unfortunately because intrusion alarms, radio masts, and door openers use a similar signal these can be the cause of a lot of false alarms.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that a more selective radar detector, can, and WILL create less audible "false alarms", because of its ability to more easily single out a SPECIFIC range of frequencies, instead of only being reactive to ANYTHING within a wide range..
Sorry to ramble..
Ray
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
If I undestand correctly, being selective would be identifying whether a radar signal is a cop or not based on its actual frequency. Saying, for example, athat 10.400-10.425 GHz is reserved for company A making doors, and 10.450-10.475 GHz is reserved for company B making police radar
But, there is no reliable way to say "this part of K band is for doors, and this part is used by cops" etc. While the FCC must liscense each device that sends out a RF signal, it would be nearly impossible to create a detector that has a catalog of known frequencies that cops use vs alarm systems or doors, let alone keep that catalog updated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
We are exactly on the same page..
while it is possible to be more selective, and "further" weed out false signals.. (my point) it is also not advisable to pick your detector solely on that ability..(your point)
the technology is around, though not feasible, nor applicable in this curcumstance..
YEA!!! WE DID IT!! WE DEBATED WITHOUT CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES!!! YEAH FOR ME!! YOU SUCK, MEANY-HEAD!!! (had to ruin it, before someone else did, because I asked for it!
Ray
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw:
You're still not getting it.
Basicly you're saying that unless your detector detects a signal that is pointed directly at it, you want it to not tell you anything. That's silly because if a cop is sitting around a corner, and hitting traffic in front of you, you're basicly asking the detector to ignore it. And trust me, if the cop is pointing his radar at your car, your done anyway, making the detector useless.
Thinking less false alarms makes it a better detector is a false understanding.
No, I get it fine.
I never stated that at all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Thinking less FALSE alarms is a better detector is true understanding (to a point). Because if truly has less FALSE alarms while still having a good range on REAL threats, then it's a good detector such as the 8500 (which still has plenty of falses from automatic doors, but much less than cheaper detectors).
I don't know if you get it or not. I don't really care. You can buy your beeping box and I'll stick with my 8500 with less FALSE alarms and better range than your beeping box. 
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Well, you have the right to buy a radar detector based on misinformation.
I'll keep my detector with full confidence its going to alert me as soon as it detects the faintest radar signal, knowing that it isn't going to degrade its performance on me, or have inferior performance, just to prevent some false alarms when I'm in city limits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw:
Well, you have the right to buy a radar detector based on misinformation.
I'll keep my detector with full confidence its going to alert me as soon as it detects the faintest radar signal, knowing that it isn't going to degrade its performance on me, or have inferior performance, just to prevent some false alarms when I'm in city limits.
Hmm, seeing as I didn't JUST buy it based on less false alarms but also its OUTSTANDING range, then OK. Like I said it still has plenty of false alarms. It has a city mode that lowers X band sensitivity that you can use if you want (I don't because most of the doors and cops here both use K band). Ooo but I'm sure my detector has degraded performance as opposed to a cheapo detector that goes off every 2 seconds. I hope you have a good time never speeding because you're always slowing down for a weak false alarm. 
I have just one question for you? Do you understand the meaning of FALSE? It means it's not true, not real, NOT A REAL THREAT. So if a detector EFFECTIVELY lowers the amount of FALSE alarms will still having good RANGE for REAL THREATS, are you still gonna say it's a worse detector? One more question, ever heard of the word LOGIC? 
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
I don't know about him, and I won't begin to answer for him.. but I have heard of logic.. LOGIC, would be: NOT SPEEDING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! So.. whether or not you are right, he is right, or you both just have different opinions (oh my gosh, can that be?????) Can we stop the bickering, and move on to more useful information, at least?? I think this thread is about dead, anyway.. There's a nice fresh thread about radar detector placement, if you guys wanna pick it up over there! LOL   Ray
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,451
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,451 |
I'm not trying to restart a war here, but here's a link to a small amount of info regarding this argument. BTW I use a bell 995 and I'm very happy with it.
http://www.radarbusters.com/support/product-tests/3.asp
Vinny 2000 T-RED CSVT
MODS: 18" REV model 2 ST200 struts/Roush springs
CTA intake Pipe/K&N Filter
Dtec Heatshield
Optimized TB
True Duals w/ magnaflow mufflers/resonators
|
|
|
|
|
