[Patent] High Probability of Intercept Radar Detector (part 2) (2 Viewers)

woopies

Lurking
Intermediate User
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
447
Reaction score
669
Awards
0
Location
10280 Alliance Road, Cincinnati, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Get ready guys.....2020 lol.
upload_2018-5-1_21-1-10.png


upload_2018-5-1_21-5-45.png


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE! Thanks to @Tallyho for informing us there was an update to this patent! Released October 5 and this one is a doozy! I'm placing the update on top because VR is going all out.

upload_2017-10-28_10-10-17.png


---Previous---
upload_2017-10-28_10-14-55.png



upload_2017-10-28_10-10-50.png


---Previous---

upload_2017-10-28_10-15-36.png


So in this update, VR discussed the changes to the main circuit. As you may have noticed, the new circuit is far simpler. I'm assuming they were unhappy with the original circuit's SNR and decided to redesign it. Moving on there are a lot of filters...6 to be exact. Each filter stage is design to improve noise before it hits the ADC. These filters are probably a generic band pass filters, and maybe mix in a few filters from previous patents? If you guys remember, in the antenna patent, VR suggested that they could use multi-layered board; however, the previous circuit did not shift the signals until the very end. As a result this would cause interference with surrounding components--especially on a multi-layered board. Also, note that they are not using three mixers to down convert Ka band, it is now two mixers, this remove the harmonics introduced at each mixer stage (remember that mixers are not linear).

This patent is very technical, since it discusses the reasons why they have the alternative circuit, the properties of the DDL filter, sweep, signal isolation :D

Note: This is a chip receiver which means it has great range resolution and SNR, as long as its matched filter is really good.

These are the highlights :D
Body said:
[0079] Practical design considerations may reduce the number of sweeps that may theoretically be performed during a predetermined time period (e.g., 16 ms) when implementing the sweeping local oscillator. For example, when changing from one sweep rate for a particular band to another sweep rate for another band, the PLL 152 may have a settling time that can be accounted for. One way to account for the settling time is to start the VCO 140, for a particular band sweep, at a F.sub.LO frequency higher than the starting frequency f.sub.1 shown in the above table. Following this practice ensures that the PLL loop has settled and the VCO 140 is accurately sweeping when the starting frequency f.sub.1 is reached. For an example explored below, assume the required settling time is 10 .mu.s; during this interval 35 MHz of RF spectrum will be swept.

[0080] The DDL SAW filter 170 also has an inherent delay, D.sub.T, that is accounted for as well. Assume as an example this delay is 4 .mu.s. During this delay 14 MHz of RF spectrum will be swept (for example, in the Ka-band). This delay can be compensated by sweeping 7 MHz before the highest RF frequency for that band and 7 MHz below the lowest RF frequency for that band. Further, to accommodate the PLL settling time mentioned above, an additional 35 MHz can be incorporated above the nominal start of the band, totaling 42 MHz adjustment of the starting point of the RF sweep. Continuing the numerical example, the Ka-band may have a high-end RF frequency of 36.08 GHz and a low-end frequency of 33.35 GHz. To accommodate the delays described above, the sweep generating hardware can be designed to target 36.122 GHz and 33.343 GHz as the start and end points of the RF sweep.

[0081] Accounting for the settling time of the PLL 152 and the delay of the filter 170 plus some "programming overhead" that may be associated with the time required to load control settings into the reference generator 156 may result in a complete sweep of both front and rear antennas taking about 3 ms. Even with this longer sweep period, the detector of FIG. 1B can complete about 5 of these full sweeps in a 16 ms time period.

[0098] Because a snapshot of the approximately 3 GHz of spectrum of the four radar bands can be generated in about 3 ms, a single snapshot can capture the occurrence of a nuisance signal and its harmonics even if that nuisance signal is short-lived. Also, a nuisance signal and its accompanying harmonic signals may typically rise and fall at approximately the same time and, therefore, it is beneficial to be able to sweep through a range of frequencies sufficiently fast enough to detect the occurrence of these multiple signals. Thus, in discriminating signals to identify alerts which likely correspond to actual police radar sources, the FPGA 176 can compare data within a snapshot of the swept four radar bands and can compare data within the multiple snapshots of the four swept radar bands.

[0099] Additionally, because it is desirable to detect police radar signals as far from the police radar gun as possible, the signals of interest may be subject to significant multipath fading. In such instances, a signal received by the detector will vary greatly in intensity over a relatively short time period. Thus, when the detector is tuned to receive a particular frequency, the received signal at that frequency may have a negligible amplitude and when the received signal has a detectable amplitude, the detector may no longer be tuned to the appropriate frequency. According to the process described with respect to FIG. 6, the speed at which each sweep of a radar band occurs and the repeated number of sweeps improve the likelihood that even a signal suffering from multipath fading can be more reliably detected because the detector will more likely be tuned to detect the received signal during one or more periods at which the received signal exhibits a detectable amplitude.

[0107] FIG. 10 depicts a block level diagram of components of a portion of radar detector in accordance with the principles of the present invention. The components and their arrangement of FIG. 10 is an example of alternative circuitry that provides functionality similar to that of the circuitry of FIG. 1B. Those components in FIG. 10 that are substantially similar to those of FIG. 1B are labeled with the same element number as in FIG. 1B and a more detailed explanation of these components are provided above with respect to FIG. 1B. One way in which the circuitry of FIG. 10 deviates from that of FIG. 1B is that, although the same number of mixers are employed, there is a separate signal path (i.e., separate mixers 1023, 1035) for each of the K-band and the Ka-band. As a result, leakage of F.sub.LO frequencies into downstream IF amplifiers can be suppressed.

[0107] FIG. 10 depicts a block level diagram of components of a portion of radar detector in accordance with the principles of the present invention. The components and their arrangement of FIG. 10 is an example of alternative circuitry that provides functionality similar to that of the circuitry of FIG. 1B. Those components in FIG. 10 that are substantially similar to those of FIG. 1B are labeled with the same element number as in FIG. 1B and a more detailed explanation of these components are provided above with respect to FIG. 1B. One way in which the circuitry of FIG. 10 deviates from that of FIG. 1B is that, although the same number of mixers are employed, there is a separate signal path (i.e., separate mixers 1023, 1035) for each of the K-band and the Ka-band. As a result, leakage of F.sub.LO frequencies into downstream IF amplifiers can be suppressed.

[0108] In addition to rejecting image frequencies when processing 2F.sub.LO.+-.RF products, another advantage of the separate K/Ka mixer design is that rejection of F.sub.LO+RF products can be accomplished as well. Unlike the current design of FIG. 10, when the K-band and the Ka-band share a common signal path certain mixer products may cause out-of-band frequencies to be treated as valid radar signals. For example, when a common K/Ka-band signal path is shared, products generated by the K-band mixer that may be rejected by the DDL filter 170 because they are a down-chirp may otherwise appear to be a valid Ka-band signal (and vice versa). The separate signal paths of the design of FIG. 10, allows filter (FLT1) 1011 and filter (FLT2) 1013 to prevent this problem by significantly attenuating the offending frequencies.

[0111] After the received K/Ka frequencies are amplified by the first-stage RF amplifier (106, 134), the front and rear signal paths are combined to form a common path using the combiner 1005. Once combined, K and Ka frequencies are amplified again by a second-stage RF amplifier 1009. After the second-stage RF amplifier 1009, K-band frequencies are separated from Ka-band frequencies by two different frequency-based filters (FLT1) 1011 and (FLT2) 1013. The RF filters (1011, 1013) used to separate the K and Ka bands may also serve as image rejection filters for the succeeding mixing stages. Ka-band frequencies pass to the Ka-band first-stage mixer (M1) 1023, while K-band frequencies pass to the K-band first-stage mixer (M2) 1035. The voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) 140 used for conversion has a fundamental frequency around 5 GHz, which is tripled (around 15 GHz) via the frequency tripler 1019 and then fed to the K/Ka band first-stage mixers 1023, 1035. The second harmonic of the tripler output (around 30 GHz) is used by the first-stage mixers 1023, 1035 to down-convert K and Ka band frequencies and produce the first intermediate frequency (IF1), as explained below with respect to FIG. 11A and FIG. 11B.
TL;DR
VR is tackling their low sensitivity performance by improving SNR. In order to improve SNR they greatly simplify their front end circuity and add multiple filters to prevent LO harmonics.


-------------OLD-------------------
Well guys....Here it is the last patent (IMO) that VR needs. If you guys remember, the last HPI RD patent had its filtering claims removed, but now its back. This patent is just a continuation of the previous patent. Look HERE for the new filtering addon
Anyways, here are the few things I picked out (note these were removed from the 2016 patent due to scope) *cough* Keep reading it's a two for one sale today :D
Claims said:
[FONT=&amp]1. A method of operating a police radar detector to suppress nuisance radar alerts due to received signals that are not police radar signals, said method comprising: receiving electromagnetic signals from a first antenna; mixing received electromagnetic signals with a local oscillator signal that is swept at a constant sweep rate to produce an output signal;[/FONT][FONT=&amp] based on the output signal, accumulating a virtual image of a signal environment represented by the received electromagnetic signals; analyzing said virtual image for signals suspected of being nuisance signals that could result in nuisance radar alerts; identifying nuisance signals within said virtual image; and ignoring identified nuisance signals. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]3. A method of operating a police radar detector to reject an undesired intermediate frequency image signal that could interfere with receiving and detecting a desired police radar signal, said method comprising: receiving an input signal from a first antenna, the input signal comprising a continuous wave emission within a frequency spectrum spanning approximately 3 GHz between a first input frequency to a second input frequency; sweeping a local oscillator signal through a range of frequencies from a first local oscillator frequency to a second local oscillator frequency in a predetermined time period; mixing the input signal from the first antenna with the local oscillator signal to produce an output signal having an intermediate frequency; filtering the output signal using a dispersive delay line filter to produce a filtered output signal; [/FONT][FONT=&amp]determining a pulse shape of the filtered output signal; and determining that the input signal from the first antenna includes the desired police radar signal based on the pulse shape of the filtered output signal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]5. The method of claim 3, wherein [/FONT][FONT=&amp]the pulse shape comprises a pulse width and wherein the pulse width has a first value[/FONT][FONT=&amp] when the output signal is a desired intermediate frequency signal and has a second value when the output signal is an undesired intermediate frequency image signal, the first value being less than the second value. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]6. The method of claim 3, wherein[/FONT][FONT=&amp] the pulse shape comprises a pulse height and wherein the pulse height has a first value[/FONT][FONT=&amp] when the output signal is a desired intermediate frequency signal and has a second value when the output signal is an undesired intermediate frequency image signal, the first value being greater than the second value. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]8. A police radar detector for suppressing nuisance radar alerts due to received signals that are not police radar signals, said detector comprising: a receiver configured to receive electromagnetic signals; a mixer configured to combine received electromagnetic signals with a local oscillator signal that is swept at a constant sweep rate to produce an output signal;[/FONT][FONT=&amp] a memory configured to store a virtual image of a signal environment, based on the output signal, represented by the received electromagnetic signals; a signal analyzer, coupled with the memory, and configured to analyze said virtual image for signals suspected of being nuisance signals that could result in nuisance radar alerts; the signal analyzer configured to identify nuisance signals within said virtual image; and an alarm coupled with the signal analyzer and configured to ignore identified nuisance signals. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]9. The detector of claim 8, [/FONT][FONT=&amp]wherein the signal analyzer is configured to identify nuisance signals within said virtual image by identifying signals which have one or more harmonic companions. [/FONT]
But wait......there's more. VR updated their claims from the previous patent. You guys can look at it HERE

Claims said:
[FONT=&amp]1. A method of detecting continuous wave police radar comprising: receiving an input signal from a first antenna, the input signal comprising a continuous wave emission within at least one radar band; sweeping a composite local oscillator signal through a range of frequencies from a first frequency to a second frequency in a predetermined time period so that the composite local oscillator signal has a first chirp rate with a first chirp rate magnitude of at least 0.15 MHz/.mu.s; mixing the input signal from the first antenna with the sweeping composite local oscillator signal to produce an output signal having an intermediate frequency; [/FONT][FONT=&amp]and determining, by a processor executing a signal analysis routine, that the input signal from the first antenna includes a police radar signal having a frequency f, based at least in part on: measuring an amplitude of the output signal for a period of time, the period of time comprising a sequential series of adjacent time periods; determining which particular one of the adjacent time periods corresponds to a maximum measured amplitude of the output signal; determining an amount of time that has elapsed between a start of the sweeping of the composite local oscillator and the particular one of the adjacent time periods; and calculating the frequency f based on the amount of time that has elapsed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]6. The method of claim 5, wherein determining that the input signal from the first antenna includes a police radar signal having a frequency f further comprises: for each of the adjacent time periods: detecting a time-point when the amplitude of the filtered output signal exceeds a predetermined threshold; monitoring the amplitude of the filtered output signal for a time-window after the detected time-point; and determining a local maximum measured output signal value during the time-window; and wherein determining which particular one of the adjacent time periods corresponds to a maximum measured amplitude of the filtered output signal is based on which of the local maximum measured output signal values is largest. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]7. The method of claim 6, comprising: [/FONT][FONT=&amp]converting the filtered output signal from analog to a digital filtered output signal. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]8. The method of claim 7, comprising: [/FONT][FONT=&amp]an input error signal comprising a plurality of sample values, wherein each of the plurality of sample values of the input error signal: correspond to an associated sample value of the digital filtered output signal; and its value is equal to a difference between its associated sample value of the digital filtered output signal and a noise floor amount. [/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]19. The detector of claim 18, wherein determining that the input signal from the first antenna includes the police radar signal having the frequency f further comprises: for each of the adjacent time periods: detecting a time-point when the amplitude of the filtered output signal exceeds a predetermined threshold; monitoring the amplitude of the filtered output signal for a time-window after the detected time-point; and determining a local maximum measured output signal value during the time-window; and wherein determining which particular one of the adjacent time periods corresponds to a maximum measured amplitude of the filtered output signal is based on which of the local maximum measured output signal values is largest. [/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]21. The detector of claim 20, comprising: [/FONT][FONT=&amp]an input error signal comprising a plurality of sample values, wherein each of the plurality of sample values of the input error signal: corresponds to an associated sample value of the digital filtered output signal; and its value is equal to a difference between its associated sample value of the digital filtered output signal and a noise floor amount. [/FONT]
 

Attachments

Last edited:

GTO_04

Premium Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
4,513
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Looks interesting! This is just an application though. How long are we going to have to wait for a patent grant and product from VR? Probably not this year, maybe next? It looks like we are in for some good filtering though whenever it happens.

GTO_04
 

PointerCone

M3 Kng
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
23,105
Reaction score
22,728
Awards
0
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Looks like what ER "intended" for IVT, so that the unit was constantly analyzing values against the samples and then filtering them out. Also, has the ability to do it from analog to digital. TMF3???

For those with ADD, here's the summary:

A method of operating a police radar detector to suppress nuisance radar alerts due to received signals that are not police radar signals, said method comprising: receiving electromagnetic signals from a first antenna; mixing received electromagnetic signals with a local oscillator signal that is swept at a constant sweep rate to produce an output signal; based on the output signal, accumulating a virtual image of a signal environment represented by the received electromagnetic signals; analyzing said virtual image for signals suspected of being nuisance signals that could result in nuisance radar alerts; identifying nuisance signals within said virtual image; and ignoring identified nuisance signals.
 
Last edited:

woopies

Lurking
Intermediate User
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
447
Reaction score
669
Awards
0
Location
10280 Alliance Road, Cincinnati, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm predicting it's next fall...maybe even an extra year. This patent just shows that they are in the final stages of the digital platform and are preparing their filtering side. Note that if VR doesn't include a USB to update their virtual images then there will be another patent that is able to auto-filter signals. (Just a thought)
 

PointerCone

M3 Kng
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
23,105
Reaction score
22,728
Awards
0
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Looks interesting! This is just an application though. How long are we going to have to wait for a patent grant and product from VR? Probably not this year, maybe next? It looks like we are in for some good filtering though whenever it happens.

GTO_04
18 months to 2 years.................(assuming no challenges from ER or others who claim a similar technology)
 

dtmlloyd

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
239
Reaction score
162
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Whit all the new units out and the R3 being a very good unit maybe it will effect his sales? When it starts to hurt the pocketbook maybe Mike will realize time to get off the pot?
 

midd

Premium Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
1,528
Awards
0
Location
First and First, the Nexus of the Universe
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No it won't hurt his sales. Like Escort, Mike has a very strong fan base. They will buy it if and when it comes out. Most of the people on this forum own more than one brand of detector and you better believe they will try it out too.

Whit all the new units out and the R3 being a very good unit maybe it will effect his sales? When it starts to hurt the pocketbook maybe Mike will realize time to get off the pot?
 

winehead

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
35
Reaction score
24
Awards
0
Location
Oklahoma
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Really the only thing the R3 has over the V1 is the extended forward range.
I would have to include off axis performance also, and then factor in V1's rear performance and the choice for some gets harder.
 
Last edited:

The Only Sarge

7 decades of hauling ass
General User
Manufacturer/Vendor
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
7,163
Reaction score
13,112
Awards
0
Location
South Texas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I own numerous software patents.
Since about 1995 the best protection and quickest way to market is fairly simple. File a provisional patent application. Then you have a patent pending and protections.
Simple way to get around challenges....further you do not have to file nor publish any technology specifics. Gives you 12 months with protections before you are even required to file a formal application. So it can and is done daily. I'm sure Valentine is familiar with the process. We shall see.
 

Pilot77

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
334
Reaction score
114
Awards
0
Location
Kazakhstan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
VALENTINE ONE is a classic of modern detector. When I show this device in my store to customers, they ask: what is this big detector? But if a man once put this device in the car , and goes up to a month, he will never buy another appliance.
Sometimes I think Mike wants to prove something Escort. Moreover, I am sure that if or when Mike will make your device GPS it will be the best device. The only thing that makes me not sell my Escort Max is a database of stationary radar on the GPS. In Kazakhstan this is not the best base. There are cheaper devices, where the alert better. However, the range of triggering on a real police radar the best the Escort and V1.
I do not understand one moment with the camera. How can work together camera and the V1? First: in America, miles ; in my country - km .
In my country sometimes the no speed limit signs. As the informant without GPS the device will understand that I enter the city?
Hereinafter, the device will not emit false alarms when I drove up to WalMart. But in my country there are these stores. What if I go on the highway and I go to meet a company car Walmart? The camera will see the walmart logo and the device will shut up now and recognize it as a store ?
Frankly I do not understand the technology with the camera. What I most want and what I'm missing? If someone from the company Mike reads this forum, I ask for 2 wishes: 1) make a device with a GPS ; 2) change of robot support to real people (many times I contacted technical support. I told them that there was a problem with the definition of some types of radar which the V1 doesn't cope. They do not answer the questions).
I told them: guys, I want to buy you have a few dozen devices. Give me a discount. They answer: we don't care how many you buy, we will not do discount. Is that people? No, it's robots.
 

patscogs

-NNJCTG-
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,071
Awards
0
Location
New York
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
it seems like this patent emits radar signals as well? or am not understanding that correctly?

because 1. would that not go against FCC regulation and 2. leak all over the road
 

mrmagloo

Premium Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
387
Reaction score
307
Awards
0
Location
NW Chicago Burbs
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I thought all, well most RD's emits a tiny amount of signal in order to do some kind of a validation/calibration routine? That faint signal is what the Radar Detector Detectors look for? I lost a RD a long time ago in Canada this way, and got a nice fine as well.
 

Pilot77

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
334
Reaction score
114
Awards
0
Location
Kazakhstan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Pilot - Mike has stated a number of times he will NOT adopt or integrate GPS:

http://www.valentine1.com/gps
What if the Escort will find a loophole and make 2 antennas like the V1? When, if I am not mistaken Mike has patented the arrows. But now what do we have? New Escort 360. I think if the Escorts manage to circumvent the patent (I think for them is not difficult technically to change a few electronic circuit boards), it will be serious competition for V1. Not a problem for me to have 2 devices: V1 detector and GPS alert in my phone. But the purpose of my phone - make and answer calls, and not to alert me about the radar.
 

mrmagloo

Premium Member
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
387
Reaction score
307
Awards
0
Location
NW Chicago Burbs
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What if the Escort will find a loophole and make 2 antennas like the V1? When, if I am not mistaken Mike has patented the arrows. But now what do we have? New Escort 360. I think if the Escorts manage to circumvent the patent (I think for them is not difficult technically to change a few electronic circuit boards), it will be serious competition for V1. Not a problem for me to have 2 devices: V1 detector and GPS alert in my phone. But the purpose of my phone - make and answer calls, and not to alert me about the radar.
Pilot - The patent for the arrows expired, which is why the 360 is on the market. No loophole needed. The reality is, the 360 hasn't had much impact on V1 because of lingering performance issues, which some hope will be resolved with the new upgrade, but the jury is still out. Now, if the R3 got arrows, Imho, that could be a real problem and game changer for Mike.
 

Pilot77

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
334
Reaction score
114
Awards
0
Location
Kazakhstan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Pilot - The patent for the arrows expired, which is why the 360 is on the market. No loophole needed. The reality is, the 360 hasn't had much impact on V1 because of lingering performance issues, which some hope will be resolved with the new upgrade, but the jury is still out. Now, if the R3 got arrows, Imho, that could be a real problem and game changer for Mike.
If you're talking about the UNIDEN ( R3) , then for Europe, Russia and all Eastern countries is not a problem because our market UNIDEN will not come. For us, this device is useless because it has gaps on the short-pulse radar. And Escorts 360, the European version of promise at the beginning of 2018 will be released to our and European market. This will be a serious competitor for the V1.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

Unregistered User Ad


ATTENTION: Want ads to disappear? Register for an account here - it's free and NO ADS ARE DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED MEMBERS! Thanks!

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (JUNE 2019) (ACTIVE)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the month of June 2019...
Goal
$241.00
Earned
$325.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Latest posts

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
82,941
Messages
1,240,948
Members
19,241
Latest member
Peanuteldrummer
Top