Michael-Dallas

Dock, you present some interesting info that has certainly had me pondering and researching the past couple of days. However, there has got to be a reason why Bel, Escort, and Valentine indicate that mounting high is good for radar detection (although Bel and Escort recommend mounting low for laser detection). Which begs the next question, how does the high/low placement affect detection from the sides and rear of a vehicle?

I've had my Valentine 1 for many years. I've always had it mounted high on the windshield and it has not failed me yet (when used as an aid). I know Escort's, Bel's, and Valentine Research's backgrounds because they manufacturer the devices. However, I do not know yours; what makes your info more accurate/credible than the manufacturer's?

///Michael

Dock

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that manufacturers don't want any chance of legal action based on a mounting recommendation that may be thought to restrict the driver's vision (via a mid or low mount).


First off, I don't claim to be "more accurate/credible" than the manufacturers. They know as much (or more) than I do about radar/laser transmission, reception, and detection. They just have reasons (see above?) why they don't offer the most cogent advise.

As for me - I have a background in radar (both air-to-air and surface-to-air), air-to-air radar guided missiles, and surface-to-air (SAM) missile and radar systems, along with electronic countermeasures (ECM) and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) as they apply to these systems.

Dock

The electronic arena in and around your car, created by radar transmissions, is pretty complex. There are no RF energy "edges" in the arena; it's a real mixing bowl because of the bounce that occurs not only from structures and terrain outside your car, but also the bounce that occurs in and around your car based on the car's structures. As I said above, the V1 will alarm quite well sitting on the passenger's seat. I personally don't recommend this placement if a driver is looking for every available electron out there, as the detection range in some cases is obviously reduced. But when I drive in Virginia, I place my V1 on the passenger's seat, or on the center console if there is one in the car (to keep it out of sight of local law enforcement).

The key is that radar detectors do not need LOS to the radar gun to receive sufficient energy to alarm (and I mean alarm in time to slow down). This is the issue I think most people don't understand.

In the 911, a low windshield mount is as good as a high windshield mount in terms of 360 degree radar detection ability. For laser detection, the low position is better in frontal encounters, and is descent for rear encounters.

Michael-Dallas

Ok, so you're not quite the radar detector hobbyist then...

///Michael

Mr. C4

Jeez, 4 pages of talk about radar detectors! Just buy a V1 and if you don't like it just sell it on Ebay as they are in high demand. After all it's not a huge investment...............

adam_

We were ONLY discussing shadow and windshield height. Not lateral reflections, etc.

I say that higher up will fractionally increase detection with over the hill.

You say no, it does not. Correct? ....You said "In terms of radar, there is no operational advantage to placing the V1 high on the windshield."

Are you saying lower is better? Or perhaps you are saying "it doesn't matter where you place it, on the seat, high, low, where ever is fine???

Dock

In assessing a detector's ability to detect radar (including an "over the hill" encounter), the entire RF arena has to be considered. You can not just isolate the assessment to one specific direction. The RF energy must be assessed as a package in and around the car, and in doing so, energy reflection has to be considered in terms of a "360 degree view" from the detector.

In terms of radar detection, there is no operational advantage in placing the detector high on the windshield versus placing it low on the windshield.

adam_

Actually yes you can.

Should you choose to refuse, and find the need to wrap your argument with the "operational" term, I can play along with that. We're done.

drw964

I just went to radrbusters.com and it is a very helpful site. I've change the postion I put my Valentine now. I've also added it to my links:

http://davidrweaver.net/Links.html

Thanks.

Dock

You can not draw a pencil thin straight line from the radar transmitter to the radar detector antenna and attempt to assess the detectors real world abilities by considering only the RF energy contained solely in that narrow pencil line. The radar does not transmit energy solely along a narrow line, and the field of view of the detector's antenna is FAR wider than that represented by the straight line. Given these facts, the detector's real world ability to sense RF energy has to be assessed in terms of the 360 degree energy arena in and around the car. In assessing the 360 degree arena you have to include all structures and terrain that can cause bounce.

I didn't invent the physics, I'm just passing their results along...in "real world" (operational) terms, because that's how the engagement actually happens.

medtech

Agreed.

Most manufacturers suggest not putting it behind the tint band that some cars have on the front windshield. So that may affect placement choices.

Also, what do you think about placement in regards to getting the best possible signal thru the Rear window? I think that may be the more difficult decision.

wross996tt

This thread should be in OT....but what the heck...

first of all physics is the study of natural phenomena...it is science, but that does not mean it is fact. It means there is enough empirical evidence (see data) to support the hypotheses set forth..therefore resulting in a recognized theory...it is still just a set of theories hopefully explaining the phenomena (of course the theory is often wrong only to be discovered upon further data and better measurement). The current theories on how the energy emitted from a radar gun travels suggest it travels in the form of a wave...since we can't actually see it, we can only hope the measurements we take can help us to understand the movement. Likely we do not have a perfect explanation of the transfer of energy. Certainly some of the energy is absorbed, reflected, distorted, refracted, etc....how the energy is "detected" also is subject to multiple theories. Where the detecting device is in reference to the emitting device seems plausible to have an effect on the the ability of the device to detect the energy. Exactly the relationship likely depends on many things (amount and type of energy, environmental and atmospheric conditions, proximity to obstructions, etc.). Whether the location of the device on the windshield has an effect seems an hypothesis worthy of experimentation. Performing the experiment would require excellent measurement systems, replication over changing conditions (like those referenced above), etc. To my knowledge, I have yet to see these experiments conducted nor have I seen ANY DATA presented. Instead I see emotional dialogue (mostly conjecture and hypotheses) with reference to background knowledge to support the claims.


So in ending...place the device where you believe it works best for you because there is no data to suggest otherwise. Oh and if you have data, please post it here so I may look at the data and analyze it appropriately...LOL

Dock

From who?

Our understanding of radar energy physics is tighter than that. Need evidence? There is plenty, but start with the APG-62 radar, and take time to also evaluate the F-117, B2, and F-22 engineering with emphasis on stealth. You might want to see what you can find in terms of unclassified documents on our ability to conduct radar jamming too....maybe something on the AN/ALQ-131 pod...

Let me know if you think the military has "trons" figured out.

Have fun.

Dock

In terms of radar detection, either high or low on the windshield. If mounted high, then some degree of laser detection from the front is sacrificed.

wross996tt

I have no idea what you mean by "Our understanding of radar energy physics is tighter than that." What is tighter? The information regarding the APG-62 and AN/ALQ-131 suggests these technologies are ever changing (if the references are correct). This to me means the technology continues to advance as we learn more (i.e., refine the theories through scientific method...Induction-deduction cycle)...it also means we have a lot to learn...thanks for the evidence supporting my statements.

I'm not sure anyone has "it" figured out...enough understanding to be able to do some things, but far from figured out. It seems your understanding of physics and mine are different...

That was fun...LOL