Radar Detector?

[hounddog]

Most officers don't use the laser gun like a sniper rifle however, but more like short-burst automatic, pulling the trigger and then sweeping across the front of the target vehicle until a good read is obtained. This produces more scatter than the technique you've described, and can (and has!) be detected by vehicles quite a bit behind the target vehicle.

Well, considering that is completely contrary to how the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force teaches laser use, and that is contrary to the basic function of the laser, I will have to disagree.  Not to mention, the physics do not agree with you either.  If vehicles have detected the beam, odds are they were shot directly.  You, and I honestly do not mean to be disrespectful to you guys individually, have bought into the urban legends about how a laser operates.  It is a sniper rifle for all intents and purposes, and can not be used in any other manner.  Now, if an officer does not get a reading on a particular portion of a car he will re-target another portion of the car and reshoot.  If an officer is doing what you tell me, he probably has never received the required training and certifications from the State of Michigan, or whatever state he is in.

[hounddog]

still stuck in the newtonian era.

Again, light is made of particles.? There are theories about how wind, gravity, light, dirt, etc. affect light particles.? In fact, if you spin a laser beam in a circle fast enough to go beyond the speed of light, theory is that as the particles become heavier cohesion is lost due to the centripicle force and the beam will come apart and no longer exist as a beam.? It would exist more as dust until the laser is slowed down again.? My basis for this example?? Blackholes.? You guys forget I have a Masters in Engineering with a minor in Statistical Analysis from Michigan State University that I got a couple years before I retired.? And, I am a certifed MSMTF radar and lidar instructor.

[hounddog]

light is not made up of particles. it is "made up" of waves.

Not exactly.   And there is only theory at this point, but the leading theory is wave/particle duality.   Light is actually made up of particles many believe, and the particles behave as a wave.  I am certain I can find a link for you if you wish.

[hounddog]

"Particle Nature of Light"?
Includes a brief description of the failure of "wave model for light" and why Einstein tends to agree with light being comprised of particles.

http://www.physchem.co.za/Light/Particles.htm

[Raza]

Not exactly.   And there is only theory at this point, but the leading theory is wave/particle duality.   Light is actually made up of particles many believe, and the particles behave as a wave.  I am certain I can find a link for you if you wish.

You know a good bit about light mechanics.  Did you study physics when you were younger, or did you learn all this stuff as a cop?

[hounddog]

You know a good bit about light mechanics.? Did you study physics when you were younger, or did you learn all this stuff as a cop?

I took a bunch in high school and college, and then I learned some later as a cop through some instructor schools.? Police officers in general are pretty highly educated anymore compared to even 10-15 years ago.? At least in most more populated states where requirements are higher.  Now if you ask me about how computers work, 

[heelntoe]

"Particle Nature of Light" 
Includes a brief description of the failure of "wave model for light" and why Einstein tends to agree with light being comprised of particles.

http://www.physchem.co.za/Light/Particles.htm

i get the first part and the second part. still need to read more to understand the third part.

[Raza]

I took a bunch in high school and college, and then I learned some later as a cop through some instructor schools.  Police officers in general are pretty highly educated anymore compared to even 10-15 years ago.  At least in most more populated states where requirements are higher.  Now if you ask me about how computers work, 

Now I know all about computers.  You turn it on (plug it in first), and then click on stuff, magic happens, the computer does what you want it to do.  Or not what you want it to do.  The magic part is tricky. 

[hounddog]

Realllly...so how do they cops know that they got you and not the guy riding next to you?

Training and experience.? A good radar operator can track several cars at once, but it is up to him to determine who is actually speeding.? That is why with radar a tracking history is required, even a short one.? It means that the officer was able to identify the violator by tracking him over a non-specific distance.? ?With experience comes the ability to guage how fast cars are traveling to within a few miles an hour.? Most guys pride themselves on being within 3 MPH on most cars.? And when there is a group of cars the radar switches back and forth between some of the speeds.? You can visually see who is going faster most of the time, but not always.? Usually when two cars are running together they will only be side by side if they are going the same speed.? ?Otherwise, one will either be advancing on the other, or passing the other.? If the slowest speed that shows is 72/65 and the rest are all higher, simple mathematics would say that all the cars are traveling at least 72 so you can pretty much pick any car you wish out of that group for going 72/65 and issue a citation.   (yes I know 72/65 is slow, it is an example guys! )But other than that there is no way to tell them apart.?

[J86]

Training and experience.? A good radar operator can track several cars at once, but it is up to him to determine who is actually speeding.? That is why with radar a tracking history is required, even a short one.? It means that the officer was able to identify the violator by tracking him over a non-specific distance.? ?With experience comes the ability to guage how fast cars are traveling to within a few miles an hour.? Most guys pride themselves on being within 3 MPH on most cars.? And when there is a group of cars the radar switches back and forth between some of the speeds.? You can visually see who is going faster most of the time, but not always.? Usually when two cars are running together they will only be side by side if they are going the same speed.? ?Otherwise, one will either be advancing on the other, or passing the other.? If the slowest speed that shows is 72/65 and the rest are all higher, simple mathematics would say that all the cars are traveling at least 72 so you can pretty much pick any car you wish out of that group for going 72/65 and issue a citation.? ?(yes I know 72/65 is slow, it is an example guys! )But other than that there is no way to tell them apart.?

Damn, I was hoping I was discovering a loophole

[Eye of the Tiger]

What gives these police officers the right to shoot light particles at me!!! Those things can damage your eyes, and cause brain cancer, and excessive braking!!!! I'm sueing the government for shooting me with lazer beams without just cause!!!

[sparkplug]

Ours came from radio shack. It picks up everything - stores electronics, other radar detectors, in-laws, except the police.

[Eye of the Tiger]

If light isn't particles, then WTF is photon torpedo made of!? Huh? Yeah, I thought so.

[sandertheshark]

If light isn't particles, then WTF is photon torpedo made of!? Huh? Yeah, I thought so.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Photon_torpedo

[Eye of the Tiger]

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Photon_torpedo

You could have just said the components of a torpedo were contained within an elongated elliptical casing. (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) The weapon was armed with a warhead filled with magnetically constrained matter and antimatter. Upon the detonation requirements being met (such as impact with another object) the magnetic constraint collapsed, allowing the reactants to combine. The resulting annihilation released energy in the form of EM radiation and particles (like neutrinos.) (citation needed - edit)When fired, torpedoes appeared as conspicuous orange, red, or yellow orbs of light. (citation needed - edit) Care had to be taken by the launching ship or installation when it came to firing a torpedo against targets at short range. Like all explosives, the energy released from the detonation was indiscriminate and could cause damage to the torpedo's source as well as the intended target. (TNG: "The Nth Degree") The Mark VI photon torpedo employed by Starfleet in the 24th century could be modified to carry a warhead with a maximum yield of 200 isotons. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II"). That would have been easier, don't you think?

[sandertheshark]

That would have been easier, don't you think?

easier than googling "photon torpedo" and hyperlinking the first entry that came up?  I don't think so.

[Raghavan]

light is not made up of particles. it is "made up" of waves.

What that brown guy said.

[Raghavan]

Again, light is made of particles.  There are theories about how wind, gravity, light, dirt, etc. affect light particles.  In fact, if you spin a laser beam in a circle fast enough to go beyond the speed of light, theory is that as the particles become heavier cohesion is lost due to the centripicle force and the beam will come apart and no longer exist as a beam.  It would exist more as dust until the laser is slowed down again.  My basis for this example?  Blackholes.  You guys forget I have a Masters in Engineering with a minor in Statistical Analysis from Michigan State University that I got a couple years before I retired.  And, I am a certifed MSMTF radar and lidar instructor.

Then how do you see light through a window?

[sandertheshark]

Then how do you see light through a window?

There's no particles in light, how does a photovoltic cell work?  Particle-Wave Duality FTW!

[Raghavan]

There's no particles in light, how does a photovoltic cell work? Particle-Wave Duality FTW!

hounddog just said that light is made of particles.

[hounddog]

Not exactly.? ?And there is only theory at this point, but the leading theory is wave/particle duality.? ?Light is actually made up of particles many believe, and the particles behave as a wave.? I am certain I can find a link for you if you wish.

I re-assert this post from earlier.

Link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

Link:
http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/light_as_particle.html

Light as a particle and wave/particle duality is even taught in the 12th grade physics class:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/light.html

[sandertheshark]

hounddog just said that light is made of particles.

It is.  Particle streams that behave as waves.

[hounddog]

There's no particles in light, how does a photovoltic cell work?? Particle-Wave Duality FTW!

Just so you understand, you can not have duality between two things where you claim one does not exist.? Therefore, Wave/Particle Duality can only transpire if both are present.? ?

At this point, I believe we have exhausted this topic.? Established: particles do exist in light.? Any further debate on this topic =?
(the beat the dead horse icon would not work for me)

[Soup DeVille]

Just so you understand, you can not have duality between two things where you claim one does not exist.? Therefore, Wave/Particle Duality can only transpire if both are present.? ?

At this point, I believe we have exhausted this topic.? Established: particles do exist in light.? Any further debate on this topic =?
(the beat the dead horse icon would not work for me)

"Particle light beam" is a nonsense phrase. There are no particles being added to the light. There are no particles travelling at the speed of light. Yes, the concept of particle/wave duality is slightly confusing; but the waves and the particles do not coexist at the same time in the same place. Very simply put, matter is just a way for energy to be and energy is just a way for matter to be, but this really isn't the forum to discuss basic relativity.

But what really puzzles me is how you claim light is effected by wind. My friend, you have just plain been misinformed. Let's go with your concept that light does travel in particles. Nevermind for now that this is wrong, for the sake of this argument here, let's assume that its true. We can agree on a few things right off the bat, can we not? The speed of light is approximately 300 million meters per second. The fastest wind ever recorded was 318 MPH, or 142 m/s. Let's ignore the range of your typical laser gun and assume that its infinite. You still have to sight it visually. An officer standing with his eye at 6 ft above the ground on flat level ground will have a horizon 3.3 miles away or 5300 meters. It will therefore take a light beam 0.000003 seconds to reach the horizon and bounce back. In that time, the fastest wind ever recorded will deflect our fictitious "particle light beam" 0.000426 meters. That's under one half of 1 millimeter, or about the typical  thickness of your car's paint.

Also, on laser gun technique: Try as they might to claim otherwise, very few people have the ability to lock a handheld device dead-on target on a moving object 1 mile or so away. Especially a relatively awkward, pistol-shaped device. The more reliable technique is to aim slightly in front of the vehicle and let it come into the path of the laser.

Lasers that hit the windshield of a car are reflected and refracted throughout the cars greenhouse like a sunbeam hitting a prism, creating a detectable signal for cars behind it. Laser, as we;ve previously established is just light: highly focused 904 nanometer light. it acts very much like visible light. It reflects, it refracts, and in doing so: it scatters. And it becomes detectable.

[Soup DeVille]

A particle light beam is a laser.? And being that light is comprised of particles, and it is used in police infrared lasers (infrared is light, duh) we are using particle light beam to measure your speed.? Basic physics 101.? ? Sorry, but you are wrong about the laser jammer.? Used them from the time they came out in 1994 or 1995 until I retired last year, and they can not be jammed.? As I stated, they can be redirected not jammed.? Provide me with one credible study link to disprove what I said please.? The problem with the example you provided is this; a laser is pointed and returned to its emitter.? In the matter of nano-seconds.? A "jammer", as you call it,? which might also emit a laser would have to be aimed DIRECTLY at the officers laser receiver, and tuned to the EXACT frequency of his laser unit.? The odds are rediculous that it would ever work.? ?How do you preprogram a laser emitter to send out signals to the exact location where an officer would be sitting on either side of the road, and with the proper angles?? And then program it to hit the exact frequency while the officer is using his laser?? Oh wait, I think I have the answer...

However, in Michigan there is a law which makes any instrument positioned on a car which it's sole purpose is to jam or negatively affect law enforcement speed measuring devices.? ?It is a misdemeanor.?

You have to neither aim you 'return laser' directly at the officer, nor is finding the right frequency a problem. Lidar uses 904 nm light produced by gallium/arsenide diodes. It is not an exact frequency, but a narrow band of frequencies. These diodes are commercially available and legally usable in most jurisdictions. Also, many of these devices have more than one purpose, which may negate their illegality. Besides which: properly installed they would be hard to find and positively identify.

Also, while the officer's laser has to be narrowly focused, the 'jamming' laser does not: it simply has to be able to reduce the officer's laser's signal to noise ratio to an unusable state. A wide cone will do the trick just fine.

P.S: I do not know when commercially available lidar jammers came on the market. It may very well be that they did not exist in 1995. Even today, real ones are rare enough that the odds of an officer coming across one, identifying it for what it is and determining whether or not it interfered with his job would not be very great.

[Raghavan]

Now i'm just confused so i'll stop posting in this thread.

[Soup DeVille]

? Provide me with one credible study link to disprove what I said please.? ?

Okay,

http://www.radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=8502

http://www.radarbusters.com/support/speedlabs-2005/active-laser-jamming.asp

http://www.speedlabs.com/radar_laser_jammers.html

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=116259

http://www.guysoflidar.com/radar-detector-laser-jammer-shootout-2005/laser-jammer-tests.html

[hounddog]

? There are theories about how wind, gravity, light, dirt, etc. affect light particles

Soup Deville, perhaps you might wish to read one of my posts in its entirety.   

[hounddog]

Yes, the concept of particle/wave duality is slightly confusing; but the waves and the particles do not coexist at the same time in the same place.

No, there is nothing confusing about it.? And, yes, light can exist as both at the same time as they have to otherwise the entire wave/particle duality theory can not.? You know, that whole "duality" thing.? ? But this is ALL theory as we are not able to capture light and examine it under an electron microscope.? I honestly do not know where you have obtained you "education," however, it would appear that a remedial refresher course is in order.?

[TheIntrepid]

Problem is that laser is the predominate weapon of choice here in Ontario. Couple that with the fact that the detectors are illegal and well....

Okay; but how will they know if it's under my seat? Do they have radar-detector-detectors now?

Is there a "Laser-detector" now?