http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?threadid=92221

the detector is detectable

 

Just going to redirect this to Off Topic. I understand that a lot of S2000 owners have the V1, but we try to keep this forum specific to S2000 issues. They aren't necessarily mutual.

 

You may want to point them to this thread...and the reason why it got picked up.

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...&threadid=32104

 

Hey Kids.....Guess What?

Radar detectors are "passive". They emit no signal and thus cannot be detected by anything...period!!!!!!

Case in point from this persons post:

my new V1=slam-dunked by police.Mike Valentine admits weaknesses
In October I bought the new V1.It has dynamite detection capabilites, but here in Ontario Canada, where detectors are illegal, the cops are buying new RDD's. So a cop seized my baby the other day,even though he wasnt using his radar on me.

If he wasn't using radar on him how did the detector give him up?

Answer: The cop walked up and saw it in his car.

Solution: Get a concealed radar such as the SR-1

Utah

P.S. I love these posts, they're so entertaining.

 

Since when have radar detectors emitted no signal? You're speaking your ignorance of radio engineering. Go back to freshman year, and reread the part of radio systems that says that recievers also must necessarily emit some amount of radiation from their mixers. In short, any existing radio receiver (your V1 included) also transmits a detectable, albeit weak, signal.

If detectors don't emit anything, then why does VG2 exist? Why do radar detectors build in countermeasures to shut down their mixers in the presence of a VG2? C'mon now, Utah.

- Warren

 

Guys...

Before this blows up into another ugly incident, have a look at what I posted

New Radar Detector Detector-The present VG-2 radar detector/detector is looking for local oscillator (LO) radiation of radar detectors of 11.55 GHz. Most detector makers have changed their LO from 12-15 GHz and can

 

moonpie, you're also expressing your ignorance of radio design. I don't care how much operator experience you have in the military, you're wrong. Besides, the concept of a "radio silent radar" is pretty laughable, so I hope you're just pulling my leg with your entire post. If you'd like, I'll sell you a whole box of light-silent lightbulbs.

I work for National Semiconductor as an applications engineer on mixed-mode components and receiver chipsets for 3G, GSM, and CDMA wireless communications. I help groups like Nokia and GE design their next-generation communications devices by critiquing their use of our reciever chipsets and ADCs.

Here is the gospel -- and if you don't believe me, I challenge you to find that ratty old freshman year electronics textbook and prove me wrong.

Any receiver that has a heterodyne mixer also has a local oscillator, and the LO signals on PCB traces and even bond wires inside IC packages radiate. In bad designs, even the coupled locations in the ground planes also radiate. You can enclose the whole mess inside a Faraday cage (as is standard practice) and prevent a good bit of it from leaking out, but even the skin currents on the Faraday cage itself can cause near-field radiation in certain situations.

Now, there are some "software radio" applications that use heavily undersampled IF stages instead of a heterodyne mixer, and therefore don't radiate any LO signals. However, they don't work anywhere close to the microwave band, and they aren't used in any kind of radar detector. When you get into 10GHz territory, you're going to have to use stripline PCBs or waveguides, and you'll have to use a heterodyne mixer. ANY RECEIVER THAT USES A MIXER RADIATES. ALL MICROWAVE RECIEVERS USE MIXERS. ALL MICROWAVE RECEIVERS RADIATE.

Give it up, naysayers, you're wrong. Radar detectors (yup, all of them) are inherently detectable. There is no existing technology that can make them undetectable. If you still don't believe me, I again challenge you to find a book or an experienced engineer that says otherwise.

- Warren

 

BTW, thanks Dogman, for defending me. Perhaps we together can hold back the black hand of ignorance.

- Warren

 

Perhaps "military intelligence" really IS an oxymoron, after all. Sad. Just BTW, National is a gov't contractor, produces a huge line of military-spec components, and is involved in the design of many of the systems you used.

I'm going to try once more to bash some sense into your thick head.

1) HF and UHF radio are not microwave, and there ARE radio-quiet receiver technologies available, like the chipsets I mentioned. HF and UHF energy is not part of this discussion.

2) Your "radio-quiet" modes removes power from both the transmitter AND the receiver. Therefore, indeed, the device produces no spurious emissions. Removing the battery from the device is a good example of a "radio quiet" technological advance.

3) You weren't using microwave receive-only equipment in the military, and no one was using receiver detection devices to find soldiers. It wouldn't be reasonable, because it almost certainly couldn't be made directional. However, it's quite routine to use sensitive receivers to pick up the faint LO emission from radar detectors in cars driving by single-file on a highway at 60 mph. Soldiers are not a captive audience, but cars on a highway are. All you need is a simple "yep, I got a bit of 11.5GHz" or "nope, I didn't get anything" as each passes 10 feet from your receiver.

4) Your experience as an operator of military radar has no significance to this discussion of radar detector detection. However, my experience as a radio system designer for commerical and military applications has great significance. A microwave receiver, unless built with alien technology, will radiate at least SOME LO emissions.

5) If they aren't detectable, then why do police routinely use detectors? I can't understand how you continue to argue in the face of an enormous body of evidence, and one very argumentative engineer. Go ask your local friendly highway patrol to demonstrate their RDD.

So far, you've attempted to tell me I'm wrong. I've asked you to prove me wrong. If you can, I'll gladly back down. Do some of your own research, and educate yourself, before you attempt to engage in a discussion in which you are unprepared. Avoid making yourself look stupid in front of others. Find me a reputable reference (book, engineer, etc.) that agrees with you, and I'll have cause for concern. You aren't a radio designer. If you flip a switch labelled "radio quiet," does that in any way indicate to you that know anything about radio design?

Do you even know what a heterodyne receiver is?

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonpie
[B]hmm...I wonder how we stayed undetected in the Persian Gulf while operating both HF, UHF radios,