V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive)

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
588
Reaction score
1,187
Location
Florida
Recently I've wanted to share my pursuit of the 'perfect sweep' set and take it to a deeper level by analyzing different sweep scenarios and looking for how many 'checks per second' each frequency is receiving in both the 'sweet spots' and the 'fringe areas' of the custom sweep. Sweet spots would be a tighter area within the legal 200MHz boxes where over 90% of real radar resides. Fringe areas would be anything beyond the sweet spots. Fringe areas are places where rarely a real threat is found, but still important for insurance.



My focus lately is on the idea that an unfiltered,custom swept RD is mostly helpful for weak, fast signals. VR has already done the heavy lifting for us in discovering the '5 sweep per scan' premise to detect POP. So we know for a fact that 'hyper-scanning' a focused area will allow a detector to respond to brief glimpses of a specified microwave frequency(s).

So it is on this line of thinking that I'm wondering if perhaps a distant weak 34.7 or 35.5 signal may, through multi-pathing, appear and disappear on a similar level as a POP transmission. If this is anywhere close to being true, then wouldn't we be best served to have our RD's looking for 34.7 & 35.5 with a POP type mentality?
For the record, assuming the full 2.6GHz sweep rate is 350ms, a successful POP sweep will check those frequencies 15 times per second. (1000ms / 15 = 67ms)


Please realize the data I'm about to share is extremely unscientific. It's based off pure logic. I have no idea how the processor in the V1 actually works. Also, for the purpose of this analysis I'm completely negating POP and whatever the processor is doing with POP algorithms during a scan. I'm also assuming the processor seamlessly switches between sweeps with no time loss.


This entire analysis is based on the idea that a V1 can scan 2.6GHz in approximately 350ms which I think is pretty accurate.
But please take everything here with a grain of salt since this is all just theory.


Below are four custom sweep scenarios. You'll notice I interleave my sweeps(except for the standard sweep).

The reason I interleave is not to annoy PointerCone :), but to level-load the time between each frequency. After all, this analysis is all about crunching milliseconds.



The charts are focusing only on 34.7 & 35.5 since POP already takes care of 33.8.

Orange is used for 34.7 and Green is used for 35.5 to distinguish to two.
Notice the 'checks per second' for each scenario. I personally like anything near 15-17 checks per second, which is roughly POP speed. Anything beyond that is probably overkill and might even hinder performance.

Also, each chart is based on a 4GHz sweep. Don't ask me why but thats the sweep I used. So we are comparing exactly the same time frame for each scenario which is 4GHz (a little over a half second to scan)

Standard Sweep.JPG

'Standard Sweep' covers all swept frequencies evenly with no favoritism to any particular area. I don't like a standard sweep because the fringes are being checked way too much while the sweet spots are not getting checked enough. I think if you run sweeps as tight as the detector will allow, then you may get optimum performance with just a standard sweep set. But I like to run wide sweeps for 'insurance'. So because I prefer wider sweeps, I need the added benefit of 'micro sweeps' to catch up in the sweet zones.

Micro Sweeps Balanced.jpg

'Micro Sweeps Balanced' is a great setup, however I prefer slightly wider sweet spot coverage than this setup.

WIDER Micro Sweeps Balanced.jpg

'WIDER Micro Sweeps Balanced' is my personal favorite and what I'm using right now since it offers a wider sweet zone at POP speeds while still offering good protection outside the sweet spots.

Micro Sweeps 34.7.jpg

'Micro Sweeps 34.7' looks blisteringly fast on 34.7, but probably overkill. I ran this sweep a while back and remember excellent 34.7 performance but wanted to even things out since I experience everything.(not just 34.7)




And that's my 5[SUP]th[/SUP] grade analysis of custom sweeps. Probably 90% of everything I just posted is wrong, but I wanted to share anyway.


Anyone who doesn't buy into the theory of 34.7 & 35.5 sometimes arriving at the horn in POP type bursts can just use a simple standard sweep which is plenty, plenty fast. There would be no reason to add additional micro sweeps. Again please take all this with a grain of salt.

Thanks for reading,
Buz
 

Chas0039

Gone
Intermediate User
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
587
Reaction score
381
Location
Minnesota
I see what you are doing. Very impressive. I would have never thought of multiple sweeps in the center at the expense of the edges. I love the logic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buz

NVR2FST

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
860
Location
Somewhere in cyberspace.
I couple of years ago I discovered a Sherriff's Deputy parked at a fast food outlet with the radar (34.7 GHz) left on in his empty patrol vehicle. Since traffic was light, and I knew his exact frequency, I decided to set up some ridiculously tight sweeps to test. Maybe 10 GHz on either side of the center frequency, IIRC. I expected this would increase the detection range, but no such luck! Even 35.5 GHz weighted sweeps produced the same range against his 34.7 GHz radar as did my ultra-narrow 34.7 GHz test sweeps. Dunno ? ! ?
 

JustinP

PSL +PSL
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
5,099
I couple of years ago I discovered a Sherriff's Deputy parked at a fast food outlet with the radar (34.7 GHz) left on in his empty patrol vehicle. Since traffic was light, and I knew his exact frequency, I decided to set up some ridiculously tight sweeps to test. Maybe 10 GHz on either side of the center frequency, IIRC. I expected this would increase the detection range, but no such luck! Even 35.5 GHz weighted sweeps produced the same range against his 34.7 GHz radar as did my ultra-narrow 34.7 GHz test sweeps. Dunno ? ! ?
For a fixed C/O signal like that I don't think you'll see a difference - at least that you could measure without sophisticated test equipment. We're talking milliseconds of sweep time, or a few feet. I think what [MENTION=11083]Buz[/MENTION] is thinking of here is an advantage in picking up weak multipath signals from far off, that would have an extremely short duration.
 

SunTzuAOW

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
326
Reaction score
194
Location
NCR
Nerds!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG 2016 MOTY
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
20,240
Location
Lone Star State
Last edited:

croup

Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
947
Reaction score
917
Location
Alabama
Nice stuff buz thanks for sharing...

I think my playing around with sweeps hurt my performance on my V1 because I know just enough to be dangerous.....Recently changed carriers so had all new devices to set up....Wanted to get a clean install of YAV1 on all of my devices...First week I decided to run the V1 with default settings and all bands on....Well that lasted about two days because getting schooled even worse than before by 9500ci....So I remembered you mentioning that you thought multiple sweeps of bands might actually hurt performance....Well I went to the simple preset single sweeps that come with YAV1 and my V1 is now not only hanging with my 9500ci is actually beating it on multiple occasions....On every band 33.8, 34.7, and 35.5.....Have had multiple encounters over the last two weeks so I am not talking about any one or two freak encounters.....Do have to add in a disclaimer though as well.....I did move my V1 from just right of my rear view mirror to directly above steering wheel so that might have a little to do with it as well....No change in height on windshield though....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buz

PointerCone

M3 Kng
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
23,201
Reaction score
21,962
V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive)



Recently I've wanted to share my pursuit of the 'perfect sweep' set and take it to a deeper level by analyzing different sweep scenarios and looking for how many 'checks per second' each frequency is receiving in both the 'sweet spots' and the 'fringe areas' of the custom sweep. Sweet spots would be a tighter area within the legal 200MHz boxes where over 90% of real radar resides. Fringe areas would be anything beyond the sweet spots. Fringe areas are places where rarely a real threat is found, but still important for insurance.



My focus lately is on the idea that an unfiltered,custom swept RD is mostly helpful for weak, fast signals. VR has already done the heavy lifting for us in discovering the '5 sweep per scan' premise to detect POP. So we know for a fact that 'hyper-scanning' a focused area will allow a detector to respond to brief glimpses of a specified microwave frequency(s).

So it is on this line of thinking that I'm wondering if perhaps a distant weak 34.7 or 35.5 signal may, through multi-pathing, appear and disappear on a similar level as a POP transmission. If this is anywhere close to being true, then wouldn't we be best served to have our RD's looking for 34.7 & 35.5 with a POP type mentality?
For the record, assuming the full 2.6GHz sweep rate is 350ms, a successful POP sweep will check those frequencies 15 times per second. (1000ms / 15 = 67ms)


Please realize the data I'm about to share is extremely unscientific. It's based off pure logic. I have no idea how the processor in the V1 actually works. Also, for the purpose of this analysis I'm completely negating POP and whatever the processor is doing with POP algorithms during a scan. I'm also assuming the processor seamlessly switches between sweeps with no time loss.


This entire analysis is based on the idea that a V1 can scan 2.6GHz in approximately 350ms which I think is pretty accurate.
But please take everything here with a grain of salt since this is all just theory.


Below are four custom sweep scenarios. You'll notice I interleave my sweeps(except for the standard sweep).

The reason I interleave is not to annoy PointerCone :), but to level-load the time between each frequency. After all, this analysis is all about crunching milliseconds.



The charts are focusing only on 34.7 & 35.5 since POP already takes care of 33.8.

Orange is used for 34.7 and Green is used for 35.5 to distinguish to two.
Notice the 'checks per second' for each scenario. I personally like anything near 15-17 checks per second, which is roughly POP speed. Anything beyond that is probably overkill and might even hinder performance.

Also, each chart is based on a 4GHz sweep. Don't ask me why but thats the sweep I used. So we are comparing exactly the same time frame for each scenario which is 4GHz (a little over a half second to scan)

View attachment 44475

'Standard Sweep' covers all swept frequencies evenly with no favoritism to any particular area. I don't like a standard sweep because the fringes are being checked way too much while the sweet spots are not getting checked enough. I think if you run sweeps as tight as the detector will allow, then you may get optimum performance with just a standard sweep set. But I like to run wide sweeps for 'insurance'. So because I prefer wider sweeps, I need the added benefit of 'micro sweeps' to catch up in the sweet zones.

View attachment 44476

'Micro Sweeps Balanced' is a great setup, however I prefer slightly wider sweet spot coverage than this setup.

View attachment 44477

'WIDER Micro Sweeps Balanced' is my personal favorite and what I'm using right now since it offers a wider sweet zone at POP speeds while still offering good protection outside the sweet spots.

View attachment 44478

'Micro Sweeps 34.7' looks blisteringly fast on 34.7, but probably overkill. I ran this sweep a while back and remember excellent 34.7 performance but wanted to even things out since I experience everything.(not just 34.7)




And that's my 5[SUP]th[/SUP] grade analysis of custom sweeps. Probably 90% of everything I just posted is wrong, but I wanted to share anyway.


Anyone who doesn't buy into the theory of 34.7 & 35.5 sometimes arriving at the horn in POP type bursts can just use a simple standard sweep which is plenty, plenty fast. There would be no reason to add additional micro sweeps. Again please take all this with a grain of salt.

Thanks for reading,
Buz
For a fixed C/O signal like that I don't think you'll see a difference - at least that you could measure without sophisticated test equipment. We're talking milliseconds of sweep time, or a few feet. I think what @Buz is thinking of here is an advantage in picking up weak multipath signals from far off, that would have an extremely short duration.
@Buz , You do know that Deep Dive belongs to VG and that I own "Deep dRive" :):)

Excellent analysis and thought process. You're thinking is valid. In fact, Mike V's latest Patent Application calls these very weak fast signals that you refer to as "chirps." Here's exactly what Mike V says is the reason behind the 4 MHz gaps in sweeping: (Red is my highlight)

Because of the internal workings of the V1, we were forced to "segment" Ka band into two sections. The sections do show a 4 MHz (0.004 GHz) gap between them but that is not indicative of the actual frequency coverage.
The V1 actually "over-sweeps" each defined Ka Custom Sweep to insure proper coverage. This over-sweeping serves to accomodate slight variations in the circuitry from one V1 to the next. If the user defines an Upper Section sweep that starts at 34.774 GHz, the 4 MHz gap between Sections will be covered. We have done samplings from several production runs of V1s configured to sweep starting at 34.774 GHz and in all cases the 4 MHz gap was covered adequately.
If you wished to sweep from 34.607 to 34.804 GHz, you would define two segments: (Lower Section) 34.607 to 34.770 GHz and (Upper Section) 34.774 to 34.804 GHz.
Please note that the Ka Custom Sweep sliders will allow any frequency but when the profile is saved the V1 picks frequencies that are closest to it's internal calibration points.

ProfCS_34.jpg



So, the V1 does in fact oversweep


Note too the following about presumptive 4 MHZ sweeps: Mike V states: " Because of the internal workings of the V1, we were forced to "segment" Ka band into two sections. The sections do show a 4 MHz (0.004 GHz) gap between them but that is not indicative of the actual frequency coverage."
 
Last edited:

Bridge Cables

Better Than PSL
Advanced User
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
639
Reaction score
463
Location
Southern North Carolina at Hoople
Thanks Buz, great input!

JustinP I think has it, distant and add in off-axis I/O shots are where there may be a “slight” gain.

The best and largest gain is Ka Guard off for now until VR decides to issue an improved horn + LNA’s on K and Ka. And, “if” they can tame the nuisance K alerts w/o killing I/O K detection performance, i.e., TMF (2), which they have not IMO. It’s all trade-offs, quiet ride + increased ticket risk, (TMF ON), vs. knowing if a LEO is using I/O K + the added nuisance alerts, (TMF OFF), ouch, I don’t like either premise. Unfortunately Stinger is not in my budget, and ALPS would come first anyhow, I’m a lousy parallel parker!

https://www.rdforum.org/showthread.php?t=42090&highlight=v1+I%2FO+TMF2+testing

Since there is a majority of K I/O shots in my area, at least for the next year as the K Pythons get phased out, that is of concern to me. The Cobra Ka nuisance alerts will be a thing of the past “if” one of VR’s patents noted in other threads works.

I run three Custom Sweep Profiles, one concentrating on 35.5, a second for 34.7 and finally if I do not know the threat area a combined Profile for 34.7 and 35.5, plus 3 more identical Profiles, but with TMF added (haven’t upgraded to TMF2, not needed in my areas of travel…. yet).

Each of my CS Profiles contains one full “A” mode like sweep broken into 2 segments due to the hardware limitation of 34.770 to 34.774. They are dispersed among the remaining small sweeps, so as not to miss any shots and add balance to the sweeps. After seeing a Huntersville, NC PD at 2 am, just him and me, with a 35.5 gun having a frequency 35.42x, not out of tune but getting there. He would still issue a ticket whether out of tune or not, and all the ensuing hassles / costs of fighting it in court.

V1 is pretty darn fast in “A” mode with Ka Guard OFF, and all I am asking of the V1 is to add four small additional sweeps to concentrate on frequencies of concern within a threat area. I attempted to run with Mike V’s thinking of his 5 POP sweeps. I just don’t have the ability to interject the custom sweep in the way he interjects POP sweeps within a normal sweep pattern. Being not technically oriented I can only plagiarize Mike V’s POP sweep general thinking with the VR offered custom sweeps along with some of the data a few of the elders on this forum have noted in the past.

I have seen marginal gains from these sweeps. So the extra few minutes it took to devise the Profiles was I guess worth it. It reasonably proved its worth running parallel, one block over, to a 35.5 Union County LEO taking quick I/O shots, from initially behind, and as he passed me , alongside and finally FF, thanks arrows, had a visual on him. The LEO needs to slow down in that school zone, it is 25 PSL. Of course he was trying to keep up with everybody doing 35+ and not pulling any vehicles over! :p


BC ;)
 
Last edited:

87GN

TXCTG Rollin' Steel Wheels============
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Hub City of Texas
I'm currently giving your micro 34.7 sweeps a spin!
 

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
588
Reaction score
1,187
Location
Florida
V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive)







@Buz , You do know that Deep Dive belongs to VG and that I own "Deep dRive" :):)

You're thinking is valid. In fact, Mike V's latest Patent Application calls these very weak fast signals that you refer to as "chirps."
Sorry, Deep Dive is an industry term we use at work. I have absolutely no affiliation with VG.

As for the 'chirps', this is exactly what I'm getting at with the benefit of micro sweeps. I want to detect chirps that are buried IN the noise floor, not just chirps that are ABOVE the noise floor. If the V1 listens more closely, via the micro sweeps, it may hear something amidst the 'noise' and not have to wait unit that signal emerges from the noise.
Of course this could all be fantasy in my head too.
 

PointerCone

M3 Kng
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
23,201
Reaction score
21,962
Sorry, Deep Dive is an industry term we use at work. I have absolutely no affiliation with VG.

As for the 'chirps', this is exactly what I'm getting at with the benefit of micro sweeps. I want to detect chirps that are buried IN the noise floor, not just chirps that are ABOVE the noise floor. If the V1 listens more closely, via the micro sweeps, it may hear something amidst the 'noise' and not have to wait unit that signal emerges from the noise.
Of course this could all be fantasy in my head too.
That's what he's looking for outside of POP for 34.7 and 35.5. Chirp is his term , NOT mine and he uses it in his latest patent application. The problem with his sweeps are related to hardware limitations and that may be part of what he's trying to fix in the latest patent. Why he can't just run sweeps like ER is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

Chas0039

Gone
Intermediate User
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
587
Reaction score
381
Location
Minnesota
Sorry, Deep Dive is an industry term we use at work. I have absolutely no affiliation with VG.

As for the 'chirps', this is exactly what I'm getting at with the benefit of micro sweeps. I want to detect chirps that are buried IN the noise floor, not just chirps that are ABOVE the noise floor. If the V1 listens more closely, via the micro sweeps, it may hear something amidst the 'noise' and not have to wait unit that signal emerges from the noise.
Of course this could all be fantasy in my head too.
You should know, Sweeps is my term. It applies to all the trash I collected in the halls of my fraternity in the 60s. Micro Sweeps is mine as well, smaller halls, and I'm pretty sure Noise Floor is also mine. Related to waking up the morning after.

You can keep " fantasy in the head", all yours.
 

comno6

Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
3,987
Reaction score
749
Location
Ohio
Nice chart - thanks for posting.
 

kpatz

35.5, 35.5, and more 35.5
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
9,391
Reaction score
8,035
Location
York, SC
Nice analysis! Further testing by a testing group should be done to confirm whether or not this sweep configuration really adds the theorized added performance or not.

I've always been skeptical of interleaved sweeps as technically the sweeps are interleaved anyway. If you set up a 34.7 sweep and a 35.5 sweep, it's doing to sweep both over and over, not much different than if you set up two 34.7 and two 35.5 sweeps. (I'm not including the 33.8 built-in sweep in that discussion since it's always there).

But interleaving short and long sweeps sounds like a good way to get the best of both worlds: increased performance in the "threat zones" and still have coverage for out of tune guns by having a wider sweep.

On the subject of the recent VR patent and their mention of "chirps", this is in reference to the fact that a radar antenna, when initially powered up, takes a few milliseconds to warm up and stabilize. This causes the frequency to change quickly before it settles down, hence the term "chirp." It's the reason why POP can be inaccurate, and if the patented design can sniff out the "chirp" within the noise floor, it could be revolutionary for both POP and fast I/O detection at a distance, as well as differentiating Cobra and BSM waste from real threats.
 

benzr

Been there done that !! Original V1 user !!
Advanced User
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
4,856
Reaction score
5,525
Location
FLA
You should know, Sweeps is my term. It applies to all the trash I collected in the halls of my fraternity in the 60s. Micro Sweeps is mine as well, smaller halls, and I'm pretty sure Noise Floor is also mine. Related to waking up the morning after.

You can keep " fantasy in the head", all yours.



hahahahahahahah L0L I am still laughing !! :holy:

benzr
 

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
588
Reaction score
1,187
Location
Florida
But interleaving short and long sweeps sounds like a good way to get the best of both worlds: increased performance in the "threat zones" and still have coverage for out of tune guns by having a wider sweep.
Thank you for absorbing and understanding the theory behind my post. This revelation is precisely why I felt the need to start this thread.

Unfortunately, I think the only way test this theory would be to fire a 34.7 or 35.5 unit reliably at POP speeds. As far as I know this cannot be done.
 
Last edited:

SunTzuAOW

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
326
Reaction score
194
Location
NCR
You betcha! WETSU! ;)
That's why you all run the world!! Keep up the good work. Just one request. Can you dummy down the tech talk so I can understand?
 

Windstrings

Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
4,063
Location
Central Texas
Problem is, in reality, none of us know what the V1 actually does with our custom sweeps as far as order once we enter and push them.

Does it even follow the pattern we set line upon line?
Or does it have it's own algorithm it uses to bounce between bands regardless of our custom order?

I think it does factor the "number" of sweeps we set, meaning if I scan 35.5 4 times and 34.7 once, it will spend 4 times more time scanning 35.5.

But it may pick the order at which it scans!

It may have a preset internal guide that tells it to take a peek at another band before continuing the 35.5 scan to finish the full 4 I set in this hypothetical example.

We're all guessing here and experimenting.. Results are so subliminal, it's hard to confirm more than mere theories.
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
79,151
Messages
1,205,165
Members
20,092
Latest member
BGE541
Top