I don't know exactly how instant-on works, but my guess is that it's set up to transmit into a dummy load. Any EE types on here care to speculate as to (1) if this is how they work, and (2) if enough energy is leaked out to be detected by a consumer-grade (maybe an expensive consumer grade, but not a $10k piece of gear or anything) device?

9/18/2008 6:38:01 PM

fuck virginia it's full of communists

9/18/2008 7:12:27 PM

I haven't looked into this at all... but I know a few things about radar...

So old school radars work on a continuous mode doplar setting setup by pulses from a gunn diode (it just transmits)...

I don't know the exact time line but attack radars haven't used that technology since DSP became an option (70's ish)...

So it's most likely that the newer guns do pulse compression to detect speed. It takes a very very brief instant of time to actually make contact with a target 2x's when your talking about the speed of light.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/tx17.en.html

9/18/2008 7:32:16 PM

Its my understanding when on hold, the radar isn't emitting anything.

9/18/2008 7:46:49 PM

There was some website that had a Youtube video and it showed the V1 detecting the POP radar almost all of the time compared to other detectors.

9/18/2008 7:49:09 PM

Quote :

"Its my understanding when on hold, the radar isn't emitting anything. "

9/18/2008 7:57:25 PM

^

9/18/2008 8:37:08 PM

no, for all practical purposes, it's not emitting anything. i'm asking if a sensitive enough receiver could detect it, though, as the dummy load is not perfect, from what i understand.

Quote :

"So old school radars work on a continuous mode doplar setting setup by pulses from a gunn diode (it just transmits)... I don't know the exact time line but attack radars haven't used that technology since DSP became an option (70's ish)... "

there's a bunch of ways to do it. continuous wave, doppler, pulse-doppler (combines most of the advantages of CW and Doppler)...then there's shit like lobe-on-receive-only (LORO), track-while-scan, and then there are all sorts of different scans (circular, bidirectional, omnidirectional, conical, phased-array, pencil-beam, 2-bar/4 bar/8 bar, etc...) we could have a 1000 page thread on attack RADAR and not even scratch the surface.

9/18/2008 10:12:05 PM

I have a feeling that if this idea was feasible, at all, it would be either a. a very highly sought after product that someone would be marketing or b. it would be well known on the "black market" with plans surfacing somewhere online and something that the average savvy person could build. At worst, it would be an idea and people that were interested could at least know it was possible and wonder how the fuck it was done..

Since it's none of those (as far as I know anyways..) it's hard to really consider it a real option.. maybe some EE will chime in and prove me wrong (and really, I'd love to see that) but I very much doubt it.

9/18/2008 10:41:00 PM

Im not sure that dukes assumtion that its transmitting into a dummy mode is correct. Thing thing could just sit there with its caps and stuff charged without actually spitting up its transmitter.

9/18/2008 11:44:57 PM

yeah, that's totally possible.

^^ a third option is that it would be prohibitively expensive, or at least expensive enough that it would be tough to move enough units to make it worth developing and producing.

or that it would have to be so ridiculously sensitive that it would false constantly, and be unable to distinguish and disregard non-threat signals.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

9/18/2008 11:49:17 PM

what if I pulsed a force field at about 3m range from the main deflector, causing the radar to self pwn?

9/18/2008 11:50:03 PM

oh, you could jam a police RADAR

but you could hook yourself up with a huge fine or maybe even land in the butt hut by doing so.

9/18/2008 11:51:07 PM

what if I save all my old chewing gum wrappers for use as CHAFF?

9/19/2008 12:15:49 AM

i think theduke needs to just accept that speeding is illegal. he's gotten pulled over more times than most garage folk combined.

9/19/2008 1:38:08 AM

You're not a communicator, are you, jarhead?

Dummy loads are essentially 'local dissipators.' Nothing military or civilian would be able to detect a radar detector shunted into a dummy load loop. It is essentially a resistor, in Mother Green's case, simulating the attachment of an antenna to an RF connector.

9/19/2008 2:43:27 AM

Where can I buy a radar jammer, particularly one for state troopers?

9/19/2008 8:04:01 AM

Quote :

"Where can I buy a radar jammer, particularly one for state troopers?"

Radar Jammers are illegal, you have to make your own.
Laser Jammers aren't, get a Blinder M45.
Also, Radar Detectors aren't, The Valentine One is the best one.

9/19/2008 8:13:03 AM

Quote :

"i think theduke needs to just accept that speeding is illegal."

You don't think he has come to terms with that long ago?

9/19/2008 8:20:10 AM

^^passive radar jammers are not illegal. Only problem is they're not that great from what I've read.

9/19/2008 12:03:16 PM

Quote :

"Nothing military or civilian would be able to detect a radar detector shunted into a dummy load loop."

You know how Spectre works? It detects superhet intermediate frequency oscillator circuit leaks. And since all superhet receivers have an IF oscillator circuit, they all leak RFI at IF's frequency. The best radar detectors shield the circuit (and maybe even filter and opto-isolate the waveguide) so as to minimize IF radiation. Oh, and radar obviously HAS to have an Rx to receive reflected signal, so why can't the same technology be used with our radar detectors? I guess the big thing is COST (not much of a mass market for such things, and it's our individual budget vs. government budget) to the consumer, followed by filtration and isolation technology built into today's radar.

Duke, my guess is that instant-on simply sends signal to the waveguide on demand. Today's high speed switching transistor technology is damn good, and my guess is that you can energize the back end of the Tx, get an SWR, and calibrate in milliseconds, especially with today's DSP. Why would you transmit into a dummy load when not into the waveguide?

As far as sensitivity goes, modern DSP takes care of a LOT of false alerts, and most high-end radar detectors have updatable firmware/software...my guess is that it contains samples of known radar signals and can be updated.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM. Reason : blahblahblah]

9/19/2008 12:19:20 PM

yeah...i'm just wondering if there is any way to get the upper hand over instant-on.

as it is now, you have to either hope you receive his signal as he instant-ons someone else, or hope you visually acquire him first and brake before he visually acquires you and measures your speed.

9/19/2008 7:00:14 PM

there's always the "slow the fuck down" method for avoiding radar detection

..yeah, I didn't like that idea either

9/19/2008 7:06:14 PM

Quote :

"Radar Jammers are illegal, you have to make your own. Laser Jammers aren't, get a Blinder M45. Also, Radar Detectors aren't, The Valentine One is the best one."

They are AFAIK totally legally up here in Washington. I know at least two dealerships that sell and install active radar and laser jammers for high end vehicles.

9/19/2008 8:30:41 PM

^ that probably warrants further investigation as to what exactly they are installing, where they're getting it, and the details of the legality (or lack thereof).

9/19/2008 9:09:33 PM

Quote :

"yeah...i'm just wondering if there is any way to get the upper hand over instant-on."

sure, simple solution = have traffic in front of you so they get clocked, and sets off your radar detector

9/19/2008 11:43:07 PM

yeah, that works most of the time


didn't work a couple of weeks ago

and doesn't work well on curvy backroads, which are my favorite place to speed (at least when i have a hot car or bike)

9/20/2008 6:18:29 AM

All I know is I've looked at two cars in local shows that had full, active radar and laser jammers installed. And I've talked to the shops about the cost of installation for my own car.

--After reading up a little on it, it looks like they ACTUALLY had radar DETECTORS and laser JAMMERS. Damn, thats a bitch

It's expensive, and I don't speed, so I haven't gone down that path.

9/20/2008 11:38:07 AM

You confirm for sure that they weren't running RADAR jx?

Quote :

"what if I save all my old chewing gum wrappers for use as CHAFF? "

I think cop RADAR is CW, which chaff doesn't do much against.

Quote :

"You're not a communicator, are you, jarhead?"

Nope...even worse--I'm an electronic warfare officer! I fly EA-6Bs.

Quote :

"Dummy loads are essentially 'local dissipators.' Nothing military or civilian would be able to detect a radar detector shunted into a dummy load loop. It is essentially a resistor, in Mother Green's case, simulating the attachment of an antenna to an RF connector. "

Yep...I know what they are. I also know that they aren't perfect.

Quote :

"You know how Spectre works? It detects superhet intermediate frequency oscillator circuit leaks. And since all superhet receivers have an IF oscillator circuit, they all leak RFI at IF's frequency. The best radar detectors shield the circuit (and maybe even filter and opto-isolate the waveguide) so as to minimize IF radiation. Oh, and radar obviously HAS to have an Rx to receive reflected signal, so why can't the same technology be used with our radar detectors? I guess the big thing is COST (not much of a mass market for such things, and it's our individual budget vs. government budget) to the consumer, followed by filtration and isolation technology built into today's radar. "

I wonder if RADAR detectors as well as RADAR guns would cause it to false? Hell, it might interfere with itself (assuming it also contained conventional RADAR detector circuitry and components), although that could probably be mitigated with enough shielding...although we're just piling on more and more cost here.

I also wonder if RADAR guns are full or half duplex? That might be a factor in the design of such a device.

Also, I suspect that the range of such a device might be short enough that you'd generally already be nailed by the instant-on by the time your "reverse-Spectre" indicated anything.

11/29/2008 7:40:41 PM

Josh...what do you mean by full or half duplex? Meaning they can receive simultaneously with transmit? My guess is that it is highly likely.

If you want an undetectable detector, hands down the popular opinion seems to be the Beltronics Driver Sti.

11/29/2008 11:46:16 PM

Correct. Half duplex can transmit and receive, but not at the same time. Full duplex has seperate antennae and can do both at the same time.

I don't really care about my detector being "invisible". I use a V1 for the better performance it offers.

11/30/2008 6:37:52 AM

Quote :

"Police RADAR can not be legally jammed, in fact, any attempt to do so (whether one is successful or not, most active radar jammers are not) is a federal offense and violates FCC regulations. Late in 1997, the FCC also ruled that so-called passive-reflector type "radar scramblers" are also illegal to operate whether they are effective or not (they're not) because the FCC considers any attempt as "malicious interference" and as such can not be licensed by the FCC (radar detectors are also subject to FCC licensing requirements since they too emit RF)."

11/30/2008 2:27:26 PM

just cover your car with PCMS. you can get it from yer navy buddies.

or, just don't speed maybe.

11/30/2008 11:44:31 PM

Quote :

"I use a V1 for the better performance it offers."

V! ain't all that, and pretty dated at that. Bel has it going on, sir.

12/1/2008 12:45:40 AM

the tests i've seen show V1, on the whole, to be about the most sensitive detector.

12/1/2008 8:20:33 AM

with lots of false alarms

12/2/2008 7:21:17 PM

sure

it's a trade-off, and one that i'm happy to make. i understand why some would feel otherwise, though.

12/2/2008 7:32:54 PM