Valentine One Custom Sweeps - Tabular Listing (Redone)

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
This post is a blatant rip-off from this posting by pwrpuma and NVR2FAST's research. Since I am trying to come up to speed on Ka Band segmentation, I have been dipping my toes into old postings. Unfortunately, the old table was created under the old bulletin board software and didn't translate well into the current system. So I reformatted into an Excel Spreadsheet and then took some snapshots of the output. I've gotten some better understanding of band segmentation.

Introduction
The following tables are a compiled listing of Valentine One Custom Sweeps from this thread. These Custom Sweeps can be used on the YaV1 or Valentine V1Connection App (iPhone or Android). Custom Sweeps allow the user to fine tune their radar detector in order to be more efficient at alerting to threats by minimizing the scanned frequency ranges. The Ka-band is very wide, so by minimizing the scanned frequencies, the radar detector is able to more efficiently sweep and negate background noise. Some of the provided tables indicate "Balanced" or "Weighted," so novice users who are unsure about which table is best should choose the "Balanced" sweep frequencies. If you live in a city where you often see Ka-band in the frequency of 34.7 GHz, then choose the tables that are "Weighted" for that frequency. You will note that some of the tables say "Must Use POP." "POP" will provide an internal sweep for the 33.8 band of Ka-band, and it is turned On by default when operating your Valentine One in Euro Mode. If you need further understanding or have a Valentine One Custom Sweep that you would like to share, please go to the thread listed at the beginning of this introduction.

IMPORTANT -- If you are using the Valentine V1Connection (iOS or Android):
- In order to program custom sweeps you must use "Euro" mode; Profile > Special > "Euro" button clicked
In "Euro" mode "POP" protection is automatically engaged.
- Getting a V1Connection Error Code "E"

Helpful Video on Valentine V1Connection Custom Sweeps - provided my our Moderator "Vortex"

Special Thanks go to "NVR2FAST" for taking the time to initially go through 40+ pages of posts and carefully write down all the custom sweeps provided by our members.

CAVEAT: It has not been proven or dis-proven (in my opinion and others), that multiple scans perform better than a single scan of a frequency. Please let me know if I'm mistaken

Given that statement, there is proof that reducing what you are scanning, does improve performance. If the math/concepts attributable to Buz's post on V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive) are correct, then one would believe the following graph to reflect performance.

CS181112b_ScanCoverage.png


The takeaways from this information, hopefully, is:
  • Trade-off between coverage and scans/second
    • 100% coverage :: 2.753 scans/sec
    • 11.5% coverage :: 24.845 scans/sec
    • 16.9% coverage :: 11.272 scans/sec
    • 25.19% coverage :: 7.690 scans/sec
    • 33.96% coverage :: 6.030 scans/sec
  • You can get better than POP performance, but it needs to be applicable to your environment.
  • With even minor segmentation, you can get dramatic improvement.
  • There is nothing wrong with using the Factory Defaults, otherwise do your homework.


Information About The Tables:

The originator of each sweep is credited with his or her screen name.

Sweeps are categorized as either: Factory Default, Balanced, 34.7 Weighted, 33.8 Weighted or 35.5 Weighted. For any Euro Mode/Custom Sweep, Ka POP automatically gets swept. It's been determined that adding sweeps in the Ka POP range is detrimental and should be avoided.

USA Ka-Band Frequencies +/- 100 MHz

33.8 Ka.....MPH (33.7 - 33.9) * (Covers "POP")
34.7 Ka.....Stalker (34.6 - 34.8) **
35.5 Ka.....Kustom Signals/Decatur (35.4 - 35.6) ***

( 100 megahertz = 0.1 gigahertz)

NOTE: When defining sweeps for the V1 (3.890+), you are not limited by a range boundary. If you want to set up a sweep covering Ka5 & part of Ka6 you can.

Information About the Graphs:
All graphs have a common scale to allow for easier comparison between them. The dashed lines are an attempt to outline Ka2 (POP), Ka5, and Ka8 ranges.
The first 4 tables/graphs are for reference. Custom sweeps start at the 5th table/graph.
  1. Ka Segmentation Bands - Borrowed from Escort. Just a handy way to discuss talk about segments.
  2. Valentine One - Referenced in the V1 Connection app.
  3. V1 Factory Default for USA
  4. Reference Points (Ka2, Ka5, Ka8)
  5. V1 Euro Mode Ka Defaults (3.890+) includes "free" Ka POP scan at 15 scans/sec
Hi-Mid-Lo The numbers to the left of the graph, represent the number of scans/second.
Using CJR238 35.5 Weighted as an example:
  • The Top number 22.999 represents the peak located in Ka 8.
  • The Middle number 15.332 is the mid tier seen in Ka5 & Ka8.
  • And the bottom number 7.6662 is the sliver just outside Ka5.
  • The Ka2/Ka POP value is set at 15 scans/second.
Scans - (2600 / .35) / Sum(number of times a non-Ka POP point is scanned) .
- calculated including Ka POP for Reference Sweeps (Tables 1-4).
- calculated without impact of Ka POP for Custom Sweeps/Euro Mode (Tables 5+)​
Coverage is the Number of Points Scanned / 2600 (includes Ka POP range).
Bridged Frequencies. If the next scan begins within .004 of the current scan end, they are combined.

CS181112a.png



If there is something I missed, or should have presented differently, please let me know.

Edits.
11/03/2018 Reworked original post.
Added @Buz 's Wider Micro Sweep Balanced.​
11/12/2018 Modified the table/graphs to appear next to each other. Included the Scan/Coverage graph.
Added @InsipidMonkey , @The Only Sarge , and Balanced HM from JBV1 @johnboy00 Sweeps
Added Scan Rate/Coverage graph.​

A BIG thanks to @InsipidMonkey for challenging me on this topic. Kudos also to @CJR238, @RadarSammich, @Buz, @hiddencam, @Vortex for providing background and support ( in some cases, unknownly) on this topic.​
 

Attachments

Last edited:

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
5,957
Reaction score
11,967
Location
New England

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
Thanks for the pointer. Did my first read through. Interesting. Going to need to read it again. Maybe with a bottle in front of me.
 

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
Just for comparison, looking at Buz's Wider Micro Sweeps Balanced setup.

<<Removed Chart & Graph>> Modified to reflect information below. Now part of original post.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
The percentage shows the coverage of the entire bandwidth (33.392-36.000) or what number of points (at .001 increments) are being hit out of the (2609 possible values).
 

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida
The percentage shows the coverage of the entire bandwidth (33.392-36.000) or what number of points (at .001 increments) are being hit out of the (2609 possible values).
But if you run the numbers in the last column labeled "spr" they add up to the figure on the bottom, which is 4.028. This is the case only if you count the sweep which is labeled as "sweep 1&2" one time. If you list that as sweep 1 and duplicate as sweep 2, you would have to add it twice. Scanning 35.534-35.863 is indeed scanning an area which equals .329. But if you scan it as sweep 1 and sweep 2, you are doing two scans that each equal to.329. That isn't what is shown. Again, I am misunderstanding something? I'm just looking to try to customize my sweeps a bit more.
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
5,957
Reaction score
11,967
Location
New England
But if you run the numbers in the last column labeled "spr" they add up to the figure on the bottom, which is 4.028. This is the case only if you count the sweep which is labeled as "sweep 1&2" one time. If you list that as sweep 1 and duplicate as sweep 2, you would have to add it twice. Scanning 35.534-35.863 is indeed scanning an area which equals .329. But if you scan it as sweep 1 and sweep 2, you are doing two scans that each equal to.329. That isn't what is shown. Again, I am misunderstanding something? I'm just looking to try to customize my sweeps a bit more.
Pre-v3.8952 V1s required the 34.7 sweep to be split, so the Sweeps 1&2 you are referring to are actually (Sweep 1) 34.534-34.770 and (Sweep 2) 34.774-34.863. If you have a v3.8952 V1, you can push a single "unbridged" 34.7 sweep, eg 34.534-34.863, and wouldn't need two separate sweeps to cover that range.
 

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
@Buz's custom sweep analysis is a great read if you haven't seen it: www.rdforum.org: V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive)
But if you run the numbers in the last column labeled "spr" they add up to the figure on the bottom, which is 4.028. This is the case only if you count the sweep which is labeled as "sweep 1&2" one time. If you list that as sweep 1 and duplicate as sweep 2, you would have to add it twice. Scanning 35.534-35.863 is indeed scanning an area which equals .329. But if you scan it as sweep 1 and sweep 2, you are doing two scans that each eI'd have to redo qual to.329. That isn't what is shown. Again, I am misunderstanding something? I'm just looking to try to customize my sweeps a bit more.
My analysis is looking at the coverage of the bandwidth. I'm not looking at the amount of time to do the sweep.

You're talking about Buz's Analysis. I still don't quite have my head wrapped around all of that yet. I think his analysis, is about how frequently a point is scanned in a second (assuming a 4GHz cycle). And I agree that the "sweep 1&2 spr" should be 2*.329 or .658

That said, if my math is right.....

The entire Ka Bandwidth (33.392-36.000) contains 2609 possible values. Buz notes that a full 2.6GHz sweep takes 350.ms. So in 1 second you would sweep the whole bandwidth 2.857 times (1 second/350ms). So in Buz's case, using his .329 value , I get 7.87 sweeps per second. That is pretty close to his 8 number. If I modify it to .658, I get 5.86 sweeps per second. Its really hard to tell without knowing his math.
 

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida
Pre-v3.8952 V1s required the 34.7 sweep to be split, so the Sweeps 1&2 you are referring to are actually (Sweep 1) 34.534-34.770 and (Sweep 2) 34.774-34.863. If you have a v3.8952 V1, you can push a single "unbridged" 34.7 sweep, eg 34.534-34.863, and wouldn't need two separate sweeps to cover that range.
Ah, okay. Now it makes sense. I totally forgot about that. Thanks!!
 

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida
My analysis is looking at the coverage of the bandwidth. I'm not looking at the amount of time to do the sweep.

You're talking about Buz's Analysis. I still don't quite have my head wrapped around all of that yet. I think his analysis, is about how frequently a point is scanned in a second (assuming a 4GHz cycle). And I agree that the "sweep 1&2 spr" should be 2*.329 or .658

That said, if my math is right.....

The entire Ka Bandwidth (33.392-36.000) contains 2609 possible values. Buz notes that a full 2.6GHz sweep takes 350.ms. So in 1 second you would sweep the whole bandwidth 2.857 times (1 second/350ms). So in Buz's case, using his .329 value , I get 7.87 sweeps per second. That is pretty close to his 8 number. If I modify it to .658, I get 5.86 sweeps per second. Its really hard to tell without knowing his math.
We are on the same line of thinking. I just forgot that back when that post was created, you had to split the 34.7 sweep into 2 seperate sweeps leaving a small gap in between. So his charts a dead on. The entire 34.7 sweep he list would take the .329 but in reall world practice the was sweep 1+ sweep 2 in order to make that complete 34.7 scan. I now get it. LOL. Those charts are very interesting for thinking about custom scans.
 

Mushin

Chillax
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Neither Here or There
Based on the above discussions, I've updated my table/charts. Charts now show a % coverage and a Scans/sec based on my understaing of Buz's calculations.

Now I really need a beer. To 3 Floyd's I go....
 

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida
Based on the above discussions, I've updated my table/charts. Charts now show a % coverage and a Scans/sec based on my understaing of Buz's calculations.

Now I really need a beer. To 3 Floyd's I go....
From my understanding, I believe sweeps 1&2 would have looked something this back then:
34.534-34.700
34.703-34.863

Maybe one of the long V1 owners can confirm this to correct or incorrect on my part. I have never had to split 34.7 in my time as a V1 owner but I have read about having to do it on older versions.
 

NVR2FST

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
845
Location
Somewhere in cyberspace.
From my understanding, I believe sweeps 1&2 would have looked something this back then:
34.534-34.700
34.703-34.863

Maybe one of the long V1 owners can confirm this to correct or incorrect on my part. I have never had to split 34.7 in my time as a V1 owner but I have read about having to do it on older versions.
34.548 - 34.770
34.774 - 34.863

How far outside the center frequency of 34.700 GHz you want to go is up to you. Stalkers are known to sometimes drift high, above 34.800 GHz. I am not aware of them going very low, maybe someone here does and can enlighten us.

Sent From My Mobile Device
 
Last edited:

LouG

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
2,661
Reaction score
2,808
I'm sticking with a single sweep on 3.8952, and dual sweeps for 3.8945.
They work fine, I just had a 1000 meter 34.7 alert from the outskirts of a medium size town into the central area, lots of foliage and other reflective stuff around. More than that would be a waste.
 

djg21

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
87
Reaction score
31
Ah, okay. Now it makes sense. I totally forgot about that. Thanks!!
What’s the latest firmware version? When I plug my serial number into the V1 upgrade website, I’m told I have the latest version. But when I tried to combine my two 34.7 sweeps into a single sweep, I received an error saying it wasn’t possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 

btmgov

ProCharger LS1 GOAT
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
595
Reaction score
691
Location
Central Florida
What’s the latest firmware version? When I plug my serial number into the V1 upgrade website, I’m told I have the latest version. But when I tried to combine my two 34.7 sweeps into a single sweep, I received an error saying it wasn’t possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
3.8952 is the latest version. However, I remember reading post on here where some were unable to push a single sweep even with that version. I believe I recall someone mentioning it was maybe because of a different version of the ESP library from V1. Maybe someone a little more up to speed on this will chime in. Also, if you are using an Android phone, try pushing your sweep through using the JBV1 app.
 

Discord Server

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
78,295
Messages
1,192,151
Members
19,968
Latest member
Sandman1
Top