R7, V1G1, V1G2 lab IO test results

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
@Brainstorm69 @Kennyc56 @DC Fluid as promised!

OK, I have finally had the chance to write up my IO/QT testing on the R7. I just received my 1st R7 about 2 weeks ago. It had ver 133. I first bench tested this version, then I drove with it for only a day to get a feel for how it handled BSMs etc. The next day, I then upgraded to ver 135 and repeated all the tests.

First my test setup. I used an HP pulse generator and an HP synthesizer to generate a short 1 sec or less pulse at X, K & Ka. I used a microphone connected to my Rigol 350MHz Oscilloscope to show the time difference between the start of the RF and the audible sound out of the unit.

ReacSetup.jpg

The scope was set to infinite persistence. The summation of past signals are shown in light blue, with more recent or more repetitive signals in orange, red or yellow.

In testing I noted the min delay time, the maximum delay time at some % of time, then the worst case delay seen. The times are precisely measured, but the % of time is a subjective determination. You could think of it as almost a Rayleigh distribution of a sigma= 0.5 to 1 .

1200px-Rayleigh_distributionPDF.svg-1.jpg


I usually tested about 20-30 separate triggers to get these values. Sometimes I took a screen shot of the worst case, other times, I missed it. The data represents the data as described, but the screen shots are only representative.


Data Table1.jpg

Here are the base settings:

Base.jpg


For reaction times, I saw no difference between Xband on/off, MRCD on/off, TSF on/off, K wide/narrow, Ka wide/narrow, K Pop on/off, Ka Pop on/off, K block on/off. These had no effect on delay. K/Ka filters were the only thing that effected the delay.

So, my summary and take on these results. Ver 133 can be fast….and it can be slow. The variation from fastest to slowest was bothersome. You don’t know if you’re getting a very respectable and useable 0.15 or a 1.5 sec delay. The 1.5 sec delay is worse than the V1G2 and bad enough to get you a ticket, but the 0.15 sec is very good.

The K filter adds enough delay to make it marginally useable for IO IMHO.

POP performance doesn’t affect delay, but it does provide small pulse detection like advertised. Not only does this work for POP, but to me it could increase detection range for small hints of a longer length signal in multipath. I’d turn it on. The detections became more consistent in POP when the frequency was at the expected POP frequency.

The bad news is that this delay variation is for all bands. So to me this version is a crap shoot and I would rather use my V1G2 with a known variation with less variation. I know to expect bad performance from it. So to me ver 133 is not to be used if you care about IO/QT for any band X, K or Ka.

So, ver 135 is faster as advertised, but maybe not in the way expected. The shortest, no filter delay hardly improved and may be within testing variation. The filter on delay did improve by 0.1 to 0.15. However, the variation on all bands was cut be up to 1 sec with filters off or by .5 sec with filters on. Note that the max delay values went from about 70% of measurements to a very respectable 95% of the time. There were still outliers around 0.9 sec, but it was very few.



I also tested the range of frequencies that each mode would work over. I only tested this on ver 135.

RFRange.jpg


The bottom line to me is that ver 133 is not to be used. Ver 135 is very capable, as long as you understand that you may see a half to even almost 1 sec worst case delay. I would run with K filter on and Ka filter off. That would seem to be the best case for IO/QT on all bands with reasonable filtering for false signals. From the above frequencies I would probably run K Narrow and Ka Wide. I’m not sure why anyone would run Ka Narrow. That looks dangerous to me.



Below are some screen shots for each of these modes:


R7-133ReacKBasenoFilt.jpg

R7-133 Reac K Base no Filter

R7-133ReacKFilter.jpg

R7-133 Reac K Filter On

R7-133ReacKaFilter.jpg

R7-133 Reac Ka Filter On

R7-135ReacKnoFilt.jpg

R7-135 Reac K no Filter

R7-135ReacKFilt.jpg

R7-135 Reac K Filter On

R7-135ReacKaNoFilt.jpg

R7-135 Reac Ka No Filter

R7-135ReacKaFilt.jpg

R7-135 Reac Ka Filter On

Now one bothersome thing came up. As I was testing the K Extended, I noticed that my 8GS/s scope produced a very weak signal at 24.0GHz. Both the V1G2 and the R7 picked this up if they used the extended frequency range. For the R7, this signal produced a random delay of up to 1 second additional delay.

Basically this CW in band signal produced a slow detection beep of around 2 seconds. If I triggered the IO right after this beep, then it would delay the IO sound for up to 1 additional second. This delay would be reduced by the amount of time after the low level CW beep that I waited to initiate the IO pulse. This delay was present in both K & Ka IO. I don’t know what this means for filtered BSMs. For alerted BSMs, I would expect a similar delay…. Not good. I need to do further testing once I find a lab BSM source.

R7-135ReacKa-Kinterf.jpg

R7-135 Reac Ka-K interference

R7-135ReacKFiltSigInterf.jpg

R7-135 Reac K Interference
Post automatically merged:

Now for the reason that I bought the R7. Here are the results from similar tests on the V1G1(3.872) and V1G2(4.1023).

It is pretty simple for these. The V1G1 has a reaction of about 0.010 to about 0.1 sec. Translation, lightning quick. This is for K & Ka. Hence why I call this the gold standard for IO. Low delay, low variance. Just noisy!

V1G1_2Reac.jpg

V1G1 Reac K & Ka

For the V1G2, as it is known, much worse. Here on K band I found from 0.6 to 1.2 sec. It was pretty much evenly distributed between these values. A significant delay and variation though.

V1G2_3Reac.jpg
V1G2-4.1023ReacK.jpg

V1G2-4.1023 Reac K

For Ka, the delay isn’t anywhere near as bad. It goes from about 0.05 to 0.2. Not as quick or stable as the V1G1, but still very usable in practice.

V1G2-4.1023ReacKa.jpg

V1G2-4.1023 Reac Ka

K POP I couldn’t get to work below about 0.7. So, for QT below 1 sec, the response falls off until it disappears completely by 0.7 sec. Not good.

For Ka POP, it would work to 0.069 at 100% detection and would actually work most times down to about 0.039 sec before it gave up.
V1G2-4.1023ReacKa039POP.jpg

V1G2-4.1023 Reac Ka 0.039 POP

The V1G2 wasn’t affected by the stray 24Ghz signal. It still alerted with no change at all on all bands.
Post automatically merged:

I should add that I didn't see any change in delay for the V1G2 with filters enabled or for that matter any other mode. It is what it is....very constant.
 

Attachments

  • Base.jpg
    Base.jpg
    529.3 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:

DC Fluid

RDF Addicts Anonymous Member
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
5,441
Reaction score
18,930
Age
55
Location
Prince George, B.C. Canada
@WildOne that's some big time test you did.
Thanks for posting and all the work into it.
If I may suggest I think some typos or missed items on bands scanned.
1617681258029.png


K Narrow with tuneable radar guns only alerts 24.080 to 24.200
MRCD On lowers the floor a bit to 24.068.

Also, perhaps you didn't continue with checking the Ka Narrow as it alerts in bands 2 and 8, where you only are show 34.7 band.
The detector stops alerting in between those bands, so a long way before you start alerting to 33.8 or 35.5
Ka Wide of course has no gaps between bands, as shown in your chart.

Again thanks, and I will have to read this a few times, get it up on a big monitor.
 

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
@WildOne that's some big time test you did.
Thanks for posting and all the work into it.
If I may suggest I think some typos or missed items on bands scanned.
View attachment 176505

K Narrow with tuneable radar guns only alerts 24.080 to 24.200
MRCD On lowers the floor a bit to 24.068.

Also, perhaps you didn't continue with checking the Ka Narrow as it alerts in bands 2 and 8, where you only are show 34.7 band.
The detector stops alerting in between those bands, so a long way before you start alerting to 33.8 or 35.5
Ka Wide of course has no gaps between bands, as shown in your chart.

Again thanks, and I will have to read this a few times, get it up on a big monitor.
I'll go back and check again, but I'm pretty sure that this is what it responded to for frequencies. It may be that I stepped through too quick for it to respond. It may have thought it was a BSM, but it was very consistent. I was surprised by it myself and went back several times to check.

I'm pretty sure that I had MRCD on, K & Ka POP on to do these measurements. Maybe I will try it without these settings to see if that changes.
 

Kennyc56

Ford Lover-I/O hater!
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
5,514
Reaction score
21,085
Location
I/O Hell, Aka Eastern N.C.
Wow! Great testing @WildOne ! This is what pisses me off so bad about the stupid delay on K band with the G2! They had it perfect with the V1G1 as far as Q/T and I/O on all bands! The range and off axis just needed work, at least in my case! I know that VR was just trying to fix the K band filtering and this delay is the price we have to pay. I just wish that they would let A mode unleash the beast for those of us who want it and let l and L be filtered to death for the rest!
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
@WildOne - great job! Lots to take in here, and will have to look at things more closely. I also noticed the points @DC Fluid made above.
 

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
I forgot to add my overall impression between the two I guess. I have been running in highway mode with K filter on, Ka filter off, K block 24.199 weak, K block 24.168 off, K & Ka POP on, K extend and Ka Wide, MRCD on TSF off. V1G2 is A of course and K filtered. with K CF to extend to the whole band, Ka is wide open. These may not be for everyone, but I like to do my own filtering and I feel it shows the best sensitivity for both.

So far in road testing, the V1G2 has shown it's typical 5-20sec or so lead on all Ka threats. No surprise here.

However, as I have posted elsewhere on K band, the V1 actually picked up a local LEO before the R7 due to the K notch at 24.168. I had the weak option on, so the V1G2 alerted a few seconds before for this IO threat on cars in front. This was a low power threat so neither detector went full bore when I was in the kill range.

Other than this one encounter, the R7 has mostly alerted slightly before the V1G2 to K band. There are times that off axis K have alerted at almost the same time. So, my opinion is that the R7 has more sensitivity on K, but the V1G2 has better off axis sensitivity. To me this makes them almost a wash on K with a slight advantage to the R7. If you look at the IO test results, the R7 should be a winner 90% of the time with ver 135. For ver 133, I would run with the V1G2. Ver 135 is still not perfect compared to the old V1G1 for IO timing. That is still the gold standard!

As for BSMs, the V1G2 is slightly quieter. The R7 loves to trigger on 24.160 and 24.168(K block is now off on 24.168 due to local LEO) , while the V1G2 usually ignores them. I would say that in general the R7 falses about 10% more than the V1G2. There is one BSM that the V1G2 alerts to that the R7 doesn't but I forget what frequency that is.

The R7 alerts to my one local MRCD(T) about 300ft before the kill zone. Plenty of warning. It's GPS alerts is probably more like 500ft. However, the V1G2 coupled with JBV1, alerts at almost 1000ft! Great combo! To the V1G2's credit, it does issue a belated beep in the kill zone sometimes....LOL.

R7 Auto lockouts have started working now. Looks pretty good so far! I still like the way JBV1 does them, I like having the increased control, but I don't mind running an app with my phone. For just stand alone, it seems pretty good.
Post automatically merged:

I also forgot to add the legal caveat..... These are lab tests against an ideal IO source. Real LEO radars may be the same or worse in the field.
Given the variation seen after many, many runs, that type of testing may not be practical in the field.
 
Last edited:

DC Fluid

RDF Addicts Anonymous Member
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
5,441
Reaction score
18,930
Age
55
Location
Prince George, B.C. Canada
I guess a lot of things are about what a user places as their priorities.
TSF has shown me to significantly reduce BSM, by a considerable amount. But at the same time a couple % points on range. Quieter operation plus the ability to run more Highway mode vs. 40% seems to negate the range issue substantially, other than pure open road warning distance (Hwy vs. Hwy).
K Block 2 on weak is significant for BSM control, but if a person wants maximum protection against that BSM range because of local threats, then another compromise for BSM noise is made.
Until R7 lockouts are done for an area (all detectors really) I feel some "falsing" comparisons are not valid, as each detector will pick up door openers at different ranges because of sensitivity differences. For example, comparing an R7 Highway mode to a Pro M or Max 360 Highway mode, is not apples to apples, when sometimes a less sensitive detector simply can't pick up a signal. Some would claim better filtering, but the detector never got the signal where a more sensitive one did.
@WildOne again thanks for the testing and details in your testing.
You have me wondering if turning on POP modes has a benefit for those long distance moonshot receptions of I/O out on the highways. Would you suggest that would be a possibility?
Regards,
 

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
Another thing I forgot about.... I tried a very unscientific laser test using the little ALP tester. While the R7 did react to all of the possible choices, unlike the V1G2 that doesn't alert to the TraffiPatrol XR, it seemed to have much less sensitivity. Given that it's laser detector is on the top of the unit, it would seem that if you at line of sight or below, then it is blocked and won't easily detect laser. I guess this is why they say to put it in the middle of the window....

My V1G2 would alert in all cases, with the XR exception from about 10' in front of the truck. The R7 had to be very carefully aimed at 3' or less to get the same alert. So as a laser ticket alerter, don't count on the R7....
Post automatically merged:

I guess a lot of things are about what a user places as their priorities.
TSF has shown me to significantly reduce BSM, by a considerable amount. But at the same time a couple % points on range. Quieter operation plus the ability to run more Highway mode vs. 40% seems to negate the range issue substantially, other than pure open road warning distance (Hwy vs. Hwy).
K Block 2 on weak is significant for BSM control, but if a person wants maximum protection against that BSM range because of local threats, then another compromise for BSM noise is made.
Until R7 lockouts are done for an area (all detectors really) I feel some "falsing" comparisons are not valid, as each detector will pick up door openers at different ranges because of sensitivity differences. For example, comparing an R7 Highway mode to a Pro M or Max 360 Highway mode, is not apples to apples, when sometimes a less sensitive detector simply can't pick up a signal. Some would claim better filtering, but the detector never got the signal where a more sensitive one did.
@WildOne again thanks for the testing and details in your testing.
You have me wondering if turning on POP modes has a benefit for those long distance moonshot receptions of I/O out on the highways. Would you suggest that would be a possibility?
Regards,
I was waiting to turn on TSF after I got some feel for things without it. The effects of the other settings I feel are more easily seen. I'll give it a go to se if it helps here soon. I didn't know if it only helped for those road mounted radars that we don't seem to have around here or if it helped the BSMs too.

As for the lockouts, I'm in a relatively rural section of the state until I'm not. So the static alerts are few and far between. Lockouts aren't really that much of a help, but for a few miles of every drive. Hence for the full sensitivity all the time.

As for the POP, yes. I don't know for sure if it helps, but I see no detriment to running with it on. I can see possible benefits to having the increased sensitivity to short pulse, IO/QT and multipath. This is also why I don't like the IO/QT performance of the V1G2. I feel it can reduce sensitivity too much on K band....besides the IO/QT hit.
 
Last edited:

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
@WildOne - I need some help to make sure I understand what the scope is showing since I don't work with scopes at all. Embedded some questions into the below. Please let me know if I have things right or where my ignorance is showing. Thanks

WildOne 01.jpg
 
Last edited:

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
Another thing I forgot about.... I tried a very unscientific laser test using the little ALP tester. While the R7 did react to all of the possible choices, unlike the V1G2 that doesn't alert to the TraffiPatrol XR, it seemed to have much less sensitivity. Given that it's laser detector is on the top of the unit, it would seem that if you at line of sight or below, then it is blocked and won't easily detect laser. I guess this is why they say to put it in the middle of the window....
That piece of plastic on top is for rear laser detections and is pretty worthless. The actual sensor points out to the front of the detector through the front lens.
 

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
I think you have it! From top to bottom:
Yes, each major division on the grid is 500ms in the horizontal, each minor tic is 100ms.

The D =2 sec is the delay for the display to shift the trigger point left by 2 sec. Normally the trigger point(yellow "T" on the trace) is centered in the screen to show equally before and after the trigger. By shifting left 2 sec, I have a longer view of the data after the trigger. It doesn't effect the data other than to shift what is viewed. I triggered on the RF envelope each time.

Yes, this means that I normally tested with a 1 sec wide pulse of RF. Essentially a QT of 1 sec.

Yes, the dark blue are past triggers from the infinite persistence of the display. In this case, it shows the fastest past response of about 120-180ms. The lighter blue to white shows the current response that measures in at about 180-210ms. These shots were a summation of about 20-30 individual triggers. I usually waited about 10-15 sec after the last alert died to retrigger. Waiting longer didn't seem to make a difference. Retriggering much shorter did, as I noted.

The vertical slope of the audible alert shows what the beep I had for K looks like in amplitude to the scope. You can see the difference between K & Ka and between the R7 and V1s in this part of the traces. In my one example you can actually see the voice alert to the R7's trigger come in a few seconds after the first alert, then continue on with the beep.
Post automatically merged:

That piece of plastic on top is for rear laser detections and is pretty worthless. The actual sensor points out to the front of the detector through the front lens.
That's what I thought going into the testing, but it didn't act like it. The manual is kind of vague, just calling it 360 view. Either way, I was very unimpressed with the laser performance.
 
Last edited:

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
@WildOne

So you generally made the pulses long enough to ensure an alert and then measured the delay in the alert? Correct?

So in some cases (e.g., if the delay was longer than 1 sec), then you used a pulse that was long enough so it would still alert and you could catch the alert on the scope. Correct?

And for the Pop, you were actually actually generating a pulse of approx 67 ms? Correct?

Sorry for the 20 questions, just wanting to make sure I understand things correctly.
 

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
@WildOne

So you generally made the pulses long enough to ensure an alert and then measured the delay in the alert? Correct?

So in some cases (e.g., if the delay was longer than 1 sec), then you used a pulse that was long enough so it would still alert and you could catch the alert on the scope. Correct?

And for the Pop, you were actually actually generating a pulse of approx 67 ms? Correct?
Yes, a 1 sec pulse was sufficient for all to get 100% detect on. It was close on the V1G2, but it did work. I tried longer with it, but I saw no difference.

No, even though the pulse was only 1 sec, it could still be delayed by over 1 sec through the detector. This was the case for all detectors. So my take on this is that it will detect the short pulse probably after the shortest pulse detect time for that mode of that RD, but the processing can delay the report by over 1 sec. The delay was independent of the pulse width.

For the QTs of less than a second, I still saw the same delay as I did with the longer pulse. Until it just didn't respond. The response wasn't on and off for the shorter pulses, but rather tailed off as the pulse shortened. Hence my report of some percentage of response below a certain point.

The tail off was gradual until it just stopped as indicated at the minimum delay.

Yes, I used 69ms. I stepped down in about 10ms steps after 100ms. At some point tens of ms seems to be in the noise for the detector response.

On the R7, a repeatable response below 100ms seems to be more of a suggestion than a rule. The same with all the variation in response time to any pulse. It seemed to be very random at how it would respond within a range of signals. That is why I tried to bound it.

On the V1G2, it seemed to be much more deterministic. It either worked within a smaller variation window... or it didn't. Very sharp cut off with less variation. K & Ka POP on the R7 just got less and less reliable as it approached 69ms. On the V1G2, it just didn't respond below 700ms on K regardless. On Ka POP however, it responded 100% down to 69ms, then became intermittent until it stopped at 39ms.

BTW, my rf source can produce pulses down to about 10ns. So, 69ms is a very long pulse to it!
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
Yes, a 1 sec pulse was sufficient for all to get 100% detect on. It was close on the V1G2, but it did work. I tried longer with it, but I saw no difference.

No, even though the pulse was only 1 sec, it could still be delayed by over 1 sec through the detector. This was the case for all detectors. So my take on this is that it will detect the short pulse probably after the shortest pulse detect time for that mode of that RD, but the processing can delay the report by over 1 sec. The delay was independent of the pulse width.

For the QTs of less than a second, I still saw the same delay as I did with the longer pulse. Until it just didn't respond. The response wasn't on and off for the shorter pulses, but rather tailed off as the pulse shortened. Hence my report of some percentage of response below a certain point.

The tail off was gradual until it just stopped as indicated at the minimum delay.

Yes, I used 69ms. I stepped down in about 10ms steps after 100ms. At some point tens of ms seems to be in the noise for the detector response.

On the R7, a repeatable response below 100ms seems to be more of a suggestion than a rule. The same with all the variation in response time to any pulse. It seemed to be very random at how it would respond within a range of signals. That is why I tried to bound it.

On the V1G2, it seemed to be much more deterministic. It either worked within a smaller variation window... or it didn't. Very sharp cut off with less variation. K & Ka POP on the R7 just got less and less reliable as it approached 69ms. On the V1G2, it just didn't respond below 700ms on K regardless. On Ka POP however, it responded 100% down to 69ms, then became intermittent until it stopped at 39ms.

BTW, my rf source can produce pulses down to about 10ns. So, 69ms is a very long pulse to it!
Thanks for all the great information. How strong was the signal? did you vary the signal strength at all? I have seen some indications that a stronger, on-axis signal may induce more of a delay with the V1G2. Hasn't seemed to affect the R7. Conversely, it may be that a weaker, more off-axis signal will allow the V1G2 to alert with less of a delay. It seems like you mentioned something about a lesser signal strength having a lesser delay once before.

Also, so if your testing showed, for example, a 900ms delay for a detector, then is it safe to assume that if the pulse was less than 900ms, then the detector would not alert at all?
 
Last edited:

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
The signal strength for this test was mid range. I would say comparable to the low power K units in the kill zone from what I have seen. Not too strong and not too weak.

I didn't look too much at signal strength's effect on delay. I tried a little with the R7 and it seemed to be about the same. So I didn't exhaustively test it.

Yes, In the past I did see some improvement on weaker signals for the V12G2 on K IO. Not much though. I will have to revisit that based on these tests. At the time I thought that the V1G2 needed a certain SNR to filter, so if it was weak it bypassed some of the filtering. Back in those initial tests I was just counting one-one thousand.....two one thousand to myself! Now, I've gotten a little more scientific! :)

No, the amount of delay did not effect the ability to detect a short pulse. The short pulse detection was independent of any processing delay. It is completely separate.

On another note, the R7 seemed to hold the alert beep for maybe 7 or 8 seconds. If it was 100ms or 3 seconds, it still delayed the same amount of time to initial alert. It also lasted the full 7 or 8 seconds regardless of pulse width. I did see the R7 apparently vary the rate of beeps indicating a fluctuation of the rf power even after the pulse was gone! Sometimes it would slow down, other times it would speed up after maybe 3 seconds(again, on a 1 sec pulse). Then decay at the last few seconds.

The V1G2 and V1G1 on the other hand would slowly decay over maybe 4 seconds. It was very repeatable and consistent on the decay.

Like I have said elsewhere, the V1s talk to me... other detectors beep at me! ;)
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
I also forgot to add the legal caveat..... These are lab tests against an ideal IO source. Real LEO radars may be the same or worse in the field.
Given the variation seen after many, many runs, that type of testing may not be practical in the field.
You need to get to Intermediate membership level. Have the powers that be contacted you about that?

Also, again just to be sure I'm understanding things correctly: you're saying that the delay you're measuring is completely separate from the issue of whether the detector can "see" and report the signal? So for example, if you were measuring a delay of 700ms, it's possible that a 400ms signal could still be seen and alerted to by the detector, but it would delay in alerting to it until 700ms after the signal actually was first received?
 
Last edited:

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,622
Location
MD
You need to get to Intermediate membership level. Have the powers that be contacted you about that?

Also, again just to be sure I'm understanding things correctly: you're saying that the delay you're measuring is completely separate from the issue of whether the detector can "see" and report the signal? So for example, if you were measuring a delay of 700ms, it's possible that a 400ms signal could still be seen and alerted to by the detector, but it would delay in alerting to it until 700ms after the signal actually was first received?
Yes, I put in about 3-4 weeks ago. @OBeerWANKenobi says it is in the "system".... :)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm seeing!
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG - 2016 MOTY
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
12,042
Reaction score
31,750
Location
Lone Star State
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
96,575
Messages
1,469,606
Members
24,772
Latest member
Tap053
Top