Two Radar Detectors in the Same Vehicle?两台进口雷达探测电子狗可以同时用在一辆汽车上吗?，我来为大家科普一下关于电子狗自身发射雷达波吗?下面希望有你要的答案，我们一起来看看吧!
电子狗自身发射雷达波吗
Two Radar Detectors in the Same Vehicle?
两台进口雷达探测电子狗可以同时用在一辆汽车上吗?
编译:现在不流行冷漠脸了
Many people familiar with radar detectors know that false alerts can sometimes be caused by other radar detectors operating nearby. But just because two radar detectors do not cause alerts on each other mean that they are not interfering with each other. Here are a few reasons why you shouldn't run two radar detectors together in the same vehicle.
许多熟悉雷达探测电子狗的人都知道，有时在附近运行的其他雷达探测器电子狗也会造成误报。即使两个雷达探测器互不发出警报，也不意味着它们不相互干扰。这里有几个原因，你不应该运行两个雷达电子狗一起在同一辆车上。两个电子狗同时运行可能会导致误报过滤功能的失效.
It can "Fool" the false alert filtering
Summary:
"Detector A" sees the police radar and also sees signals which leak from the other detector in the vehicle, "Detector B". Detector A thinks that the police radar is also leakage from Detector B, and tries to suppress the alert. This results in diminished range or no alert at all from Detector A.
简单总结一下:
电子狗A接收到雷达测速波的同时也收到了同车的另一台电子发出出来的信号波,电子狗A会认为来自测速雷达发射的波来自电子狗B,然后A电子狗就是启用过滤功能而不发出报警, 这会导致检测范围减小或根本没有警报。
The Details:
Radar detectors "sweep" the radar bands for police radar. But what is not so obvious is that during their regular sweep, the detectors are also scanning for other non-police radar frequencies that, if detected, could block or prevent an alert. This is due to filtering techniques which attempt to prevent ka falsies from other detectors. These techniques work wonders in normal situations. But with another detector operating close by, range can be reduced or alerts can be completely blocked.
我详细的说明一下:
电子狗工作的时候会扫描测速雷达的各个波段, 与此同时，在常规扫描过程中，电子狗也会扫描其他非测速雷达的频率，如果侦测到的话，电子狗会阻止或阻止发出警报. 这是由于过滤功能，试图阻止KA波段的误报信号来自其他探测器. 这些功能在正常情况下会工作正常。但是，另一个电子狗放在附近的时候，就很可能减少探测范围或警报可以完全阻断而不报,
Superhetrodyne radar detectors contain "Local Oscillators" (or LO for short). LOs create a radar signal that is utilized to "mix down" the incoming radar signal for detection. Although the LO is generated inside the detector, in most cases the LO is "leaked" or "transmitted" from the radar detectors. Many detectors on the road have a 1st LO that operates in the 11-12 GHz range. The problem is, that these LOs also produce "harmonics" at multiples of the LO frequency. So, in once classic example, an LO operating at 11.558 GHz would produce a harmonic at 34.674 GHz, well within the valid bandpass for a Stalker Ka radar unit.
超外差雷达电子狗包含“内置振荡器（简称LO）, 内置振荡器利用混合接收到的雷达信号波而产生一个探测信号, 虽然LO是在电子狗内部产生的,但在大多数情况下，LO是从电子狗中“泄漏”或“发射”出来的.在道路上,很多电子狗发出第一个LO, 信号频率范围在11-12 GHz, 问题在于这些LO 也产生倍数“谐波”的LO频率., 因此，在一个经典的例子中，LO工作在11.558千兆赫，将产生一个谐波在34.674 GHz，以及有效的波段内为一个潜行者ka雷达单元。
Of course, this poses a problem for detector manufacturers: they must filter the Ka false alerts caused by these other detectors on the road, while still providing superior protection against Ka radar.
当然，这给电子狗制造商带来了一个问题：它们必须过滤掉其他探测器在路上引起的KA误报，同时仍然对ka雷达提供了优越的保护
Luckily, they have a novel technique at their disposal. In the example above, not only is there a Ka signal produced at 34.674 GHz, but because the Ka signal is being produced by oscillator harmonics, there will also be signals present at the oscillator's fundamental frequency of 11.558 GHz and the second harmonic at 23.116 GHz. These signals would not be present with real Ka police radar since it transmits Ka directly. So if the detector sees a signal around 34.674 GHz, the detector might also look for signals around 11.558 GHz, or the second harmonic at 23.116 Ghz. If one or both of these were present, the detector would know that the Ka radar was a false harmonic from another detector and not police radar, and can suppress the alert as a false.
幸运的是，他们掌握了一种新技术来解决这个问题. 在上面的例子中，不仅有一个ka信号产生于34.674千兆赫，但因为ka信号是由振荡器谐波产生的，在振荡器的出现基波频率为11.558 GHz和二次谐波23.116 GHz。这些信号不会出现在真正的ka警用雷达中，因为它直接传输ka, 因此，如果检测器看到大约34.674千兆赫的信号，探测器也可以寻找大约11.558千兆赫的信号，或者在23.116千兆赫的二次谐波。如果其中一个或两个都存在，探测器就会知道ka雷达是来自另一个探测器的假谐波而不是警察雷达，并且可以将警报作为假警报加以抑制。
For example, if there is any interference seen in the 11 GHz and/or 22 GHz range, some detectors might "lock out" Ka band or a section of Ka band for a certain duration in order to prevent a false alert from another detector in the area.
例如，如果在11 GHz和/或22 GHz范围内出现任何干扰，一些探测器可能在一定时间内“锁定”ka频带或ka频带，以防止该区域中另一检测器的假警报。
The whole technique gets pretty complex:
整个技术还是相当复杂的.
-the 11.558 GHz scenario mentioned above is only one example. There are several frequency schemes used by different detectors, that detector manufacturers must account for in order to prevent K/Ka false alerts from other detectors.
-the oscillators in the detectors are sweeping
-the oscillators in some detectors will "park" at different points throughout their sweep
-上面提到的11.558千兆赫场景只是一个例子。有几种频率方案使用不同的探测器，检测器制造商必须解释，以防止K / ka假警报从其他探测器。
-探测器中的振荡器正在扫描
-某些探测器中的振荡器将在扫描时的不同点上“停车”。
One other technique that is sometimes used, is the detector will look for brief recurring "blips" of radar at certain frequencies which are indicative of the sweeping oscillator of another detector. When the detector sees these blips, it might "lock out" or raise the threshold for a section of K or Ka band for a certain duration in order to prevent false alerts from the nearby detector. Of course, if this other detector is in the same vehicle, then these blips never go away, and sensitivity is never restored as long as the interfering signal is present.
还有另外一种技术有时会被用到, 电子狗找短暂重复的来自另一个电子狗在一定的频率扫描振荡器信号, 当电子狗发现到这些信号，它可能“锁定”或延长一定时间以防止虚假警报信号从旁边的电子狗的某段K和Ka波段进入, 当然，如果这个电子狗是在同一辆车，那么这些问题永远不会消失，只要干扰信号的存在灵敏度就不会恢复.
A detailed description of the methods used to filter alerts from other detectors is beyond the scope of this article. Hopefully the above examples are enough to illustrate how running two detectors in the same vehicle can be a problem in light of the techniques used.
用于过滤来自其他检测器的警报的方法的详细描述超出了本文的范围。希望上面的例子足以说明让你明白在同一辆车上运行两个电子狗会遇到的技术问题.
It can cause a detector to "park" often during it's sweep or switch to a "slow scan"
同时用两只狗可以使电子狗在扫描过程中“停止”，或者切换到“慢速扫描状态”从而影响灵敏度,不报或误报.
Summary:
"Detector A" is kept busy analyzing and rejecting false alerts due to leakage from "Detector B", instead of looking for police radar. This results in diminished performance.
总结：
“电子狗探测器A”正忙着分析和拒绝由于“电子狗探测器B”泄露而产生的误报，而不是寻找真正的测速雷达。这会导致性能下降。
The Details:
Some detectors operate by sweeping quickly until they see a radar signal, then they "park" their LO or switch to a "slow scan" to get a closer look at the signal, in an attempt to determine if it is really police radar. With another detector operating in close proximity, it might see leaked oscillator interference from the other detector and "park" or "slow scan" in order to analyze them. Even if the detector determines that it isn't police radar and does not trigger an alert, this will still have the effect of unnecessarily slowing down the overall sweep, reducing effectiveness against real police radar. This can be especially critical to performance against weak instant-on at a distance, or POP.
细节说明:
一些探测器通过快速扫描直到发现到一个雷达信号，然后他们停止他们的LO或切换到“慢速扫描模式”，以便更仔细地判断信号，以确定它是否真的是警用测速雷达.当另一个电子狗探测器靠近的时候，它可能会接收到到泄漏振荡器干扰波从其他电子狗探测器然后“停止”或“慢扫描”，以分析他们。即使电子狗探测器最后分析后确定它不是警察测速雷达，便不会触发警报，但这仍然会造成不必要的减慢整个扫描，从而降低对真正警察测速雷达的效能。这对在远距离或瞬间的弱瞬间的表现尤为关键。
It could raise the "noise floor"
这将提高电子狗的噪音干扰等级.
With microwave oscillators operating in close proximity, it has the potential to raise the "noise floor" in the radar bands. Modern DSP detectors use averaging of multiple sweep samples in order to reduce the noise floor for maximum sensitivity. Raising the noise floor would have the effect of making it so that a stronger signal would be necessary for the detector to be able to pick out radar signals from the noise.
随着微波振荡器在近距离工作，它有可能潜在的提高在雷达波段的“噪声干扰水平”。现代DSP电子狗探测器使用多个扫描样品的平均值，以减低噪声干扰的最大灵敏度. 提高噪声干扰水平的作用是使电子狗探测器能从噪声干扰中提取出真正的雷达信号。
But I've ran two detectors together before and they seemed OK. I didn't notice any difference.
不过实际的情况是我以前也同时用过两个电子狗探测器，看起来不错。我没有发现到任何问题。
Sometimes two detectors running in the same vehicle will operate quite normally and there is no problem at all, at least part of the time. It might be OK on some bands or frequencies, but problematic on others. It might work just fine, except for certain times when the sweeps of the two detectors coincide with each other in a certain way. And, there's no way to test this, or to "try it out and see if they interfere" because you just don't know what the detectors are doing internally.
有时在同一辆车中运行的两个电子狗探测器会正常工作，至少一部分时间没有问题。可能在某些波段或频率上是可以的，但对其他波段则有问题。它可能工作得很好，除了某些时候，两个电子狗探测器的扫描在某种程度上是一致的。而且，没有办法测试这个，或者“尝试一下，看看它们是否干扰”，因为你只是不知道电子狗探测器在内部做什么。
The bottom line: there's no way to be sure when they might be interfering or when they're not.
最终的结果是：没有办法确定他们什么时候会干扰,他们有没有产生干扰,无从得知。
What about the BEL STi Driver?
那么贝尔sti电子狗是什么情况?
People frequently ask the question: since the BEL STi Driver does not "leak" then it shouldn't interfere with another detector, right? Actually, the BEL STi does technically still "leak". However, the leakage is so low that there is no detection from today's RDDs (Spectre).
很多人会经常问到的问题:贝尔sti没有泄漏出信号波，那么它不应该干扰另一个电子狗探测器，对吗？事实上sfi也是会泄漏出雷达信号的,只是水平很低,难以用现在的条件检测.
Consider the following facts:
Compared with today's high-end radar detectors, Spectre isn't all that sensitive: it uses the same receiver as cheap "Quintezz" radar detectors sold overseas.
The normal operating range for Spectre is well beyond the separation you would have when operating two detectors in the same vehicle.
考虑以下情况：
用当今高端的雷达探测器做比较，Spectre不是那么敏感，它使用相同的接收机作为廉价的“Quintezz”雷达探测器销往海外。
Spectre的正常工作范围远远超出了在同一辆车上操作两个探测器时的距离。
So, could there be a problem with operating a radar detector which is more sensitive than Spectre at a distance which is much closer to the STi than the normal operating range for Spectre? We have posed this question to some of the brightest minds in the industry, but there's no clear-cut yes or no answer. The STi still has the potential to interfere.
那么，操作比Spectre更灵敏的电子狗雷达探测器，距离更接近STI比Spectre的正常工作范围呢？我们向业界最聪明的人提出了这个问题，但没有明确的答案。STI仍然有潜在的干扰 。
Can other detectors interfere with the STi? Definitely.
其他电子狗探测器会干扰STI吗？答案是肯定的.
Conclusion
My recommendation: don't run two detectors in the same vehicle if you are depending on them for protection. As for comparing performance between two detectors: any results are always going to be questionable if they are obtained when running two detectors together. For unquestionable results, test each detector individually against the radar source. After that, if you want to run both together for demo purposes, go for it. If the results happen to be significantly different than when the detectors were run individually, you'll know why.
最后的结论:
我的建议：不要在同一辆车上运行两个电子狗探测器，如果你希望得到它们的保护。至于比较两个探测器之间的性能：如果两个电子狗探测器同时运行时，任何结果都将是有疑问的。想要得到肯定的结果，请把每一个电子狗探测器分别单独对对雷达源进行测试。之后，如果你想同时运行两只狗测试一下 ，那就去试试。如果结果与电子狗探测器单独运行时显著不同，你就会知道原因了。
