Samsung A900 sets off radar detector

My original suggestion was to dump the Valentine and purchase a good radar
detector like an Escort.

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sraike wrote:
>> My Samsung A900 phone keeps setting off my Valentine One radar detector.
>> I had one other Sprint phone do the same. Valentine says the phone is
>> spewing out something it shouldn't and this is common on CMDA phones.
>
>
> Valentine, sad to say, is full of it.
>
> The A900 "spews" out things only in the 800MHz, 1.9GHz and 2.4GHz bands.
> Police radar operates in the following bands:
>
> X-Band: 10.525 GHz
> K-Band: 24.150 GHz
> KaBand: 33.4GHz - 36.0GHz
>
> and Superwide Ka: 34.3 GHz 34.2-35.2 GHz, and 33.4-34.4 GHz.
>
> None of these bands are anywhere NEAR the emissions of a CDMA handset.
>
> Not to mention, I use a ESCORT S3 Radar detector and it has never been set
> off by any of the CDMA or GSM phones I've used. Likewise, I have friends
> with PassPort, Cobra and BELTronics detectors who have also never had any
> issues. Seems like valentine is the only company having problems with
> this.
>
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: Samsung A900 sets off radar detector

also remember anyone who helps you defeat the radar and you have an accident, could be held liable as accessory.

its amazing to me the number of people who have problems walking and chewing gum at the same time, think they can talk on the phone adn drive at the same time.



[email protected]



"sraike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
My Samsung A900 phone keeps setting off my Valentine One radar detector. I
had one other Sprint phone do the same. Valentine says the phone is spewing
out something it shouldn't and this is common on CMDA phones. I do believe
it is the phone as my work phone is an LG CMDA phone on Verizon and it does
not set off the detector. One or the other has to go as it is getting to be
quite annoying. Anyone else have this issue?

Thanks,
Stu

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:01:57 GMT, Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:


>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:28:42 GMT, "mikeyhsd" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>also remember anyone who helps you defeat the radar and you have an accident, could be held liable as accessory.

>Cite, please. This sounds extremely doubtful.

He pulled it out his ass.

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:01:57 GMT, Paul Miner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:28:42 GMT, "mikeyhsd" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>also remember anyone who helps you defeat the radar and you have an
>>>accident, could be held liable as accessory.
>
>>Cite, please. This sounds extremely doubtful.
>
> He pulled it out his ass.

I was wondering what that smell was! :-)

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tod DeBie wrote:
>>
>> I've had several CDMA phones in my car and I don't believe they have ever
>> set off my V1.
>>
>> I would get the phone replaced.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> I highly doubt that Sprint would replace the phone due to its (possible)
> interference with a radar detector.
>
> Notan
>
With a little persistence, I am sure I could get them to do it. I've gotten
them to replace my phone for lesser issues.

"g" - thanks for the explanation which makes sense. I'm familiar with
harmonics but not in the electrical/radio arena. You obviously are. Is a
13th order of any magnitude even probable? If so, it has definitely varied
in my many Sprint phones over the last 5 years. The explanation of the phone
straining to keep a signal in the fringe and possibly drifting off frequency
a little sure helps me understand it better. Thanks, Stu

"g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> The problem would most likely be inadequate image rejection by the Radar
>> Detector.
>>
>
> Probably not an image since most detectors are single conversion straight
> to a baseband detector. However, it wouldn't take much 13th harmonic power
> to set the thing off and an A channel PCS handset is definitely generating
> some harmonic energy, particularly in a poor coverage region where the
> final stages are likely to be saturating and into maximum distortion. The
> only thing saving harmonic energy coming out of the antenna is probably
> low-microwave filtering which very likely isn't doing very well that far
> away from it's design corner frequency. The characteristic could easily
> vary from phone to phone too.
>
> (PCS A Channel 25 = 1850.75 MHz)*13 = 24.060 is probably in the of range
> of most 24.15 GHz center radar detectors. Most of them are pretty wide
> and/or search to allow for radar gun frequency variations.
>
> I think it might be an interesting test for people in PCS-A coverage areas
> (a good portion of Sprint, I think) to try holding their phones out in
> front of their 24 GHz radar detectors while in poor coverage areas. I
> wouldn't be surprised if quite a few phones do cause a false detection.
>
> g

Stu,
Well, yes, it is probable. It's all a question of how much energy
there is in the harmonic. The output amplifier in the phone is a power
device optimized for ~2 GHz. However, the component itself is a
microwave part and capable of amplifying a broad frequency range. That
is, the technology is high speed. When an amplifier operates near its
power limit it starts to saturate -- to run out of the ability to follow
the waveform it is trying to amplifiy correctly. If that saturation,
which is kind of a distortion, occurs symmetrically on the wave, it
generates only odd-order products. With a single signal applied, the
handset's carrier, the output is made up of the carrier itself, at
frequency f, and distortion products at 3f, 5f, 7f,... 13f is in that
family and the amplitude of it will be strongly influenced by the degree
of distortion and by the fundamental characteristics of the power device.

Even across a single design, the characteristics of the amplifier
transistor can change with time and across phone models and vendors they
can change all over the place. On top of that, the filtering for the
phone is designed to work in and around the PCS band, especially the
diplexer which routes one frequency range of the antenna to the receiver
circuits and the other range to the transmitter. How well that filter
operates very far from this region, 13 times away or at 24.1 GHz in this
case, is also not likely to be a well controlled factor.

On the radar detector side of things, it's a set-up for detecting
just this kind of signal. The whole point of a good detector is to
discover weak radar signals before the receiver in the radar gun can see
it's own echo and know how fast you're going. I don't remember the
exact frequency accuracy specifications for the radar bands but I think
the one at 10 GHz is actually 10.525 +- 25 MHz. I think supermarket door
openers operate in the same range, or at least used to. I'd expect the
band at 24 GHz to be something like 24.15+-60 MHz. Because of this, the
receiver in the radar detector has to be able to scan or otherwise
discover a weak signal anywhere in this range, with some more slop
thrown in for it's own frequency accuracy.

The PCS spectrum is divided up into lettered bands. As the spectrum was
sold off, I think the lower letters (lower frequency) went first and
were the most attractive because the upper end was inclined to have more
legacy users who had to be relocated by the purchasing carrier.

So what seems to have happened is that carriers tended to get a lot
of either A channels - 1850-1865 MHz handset transmit, or B channels --
1875-1890 MHz (handset transmit). I've seen links that let you identify
which carrier has what letter bands in what area, but I don't seem to be
able to find one now. The 13th harmonic of the lowest B channel, 1875.75
= 24.385 is probably beyond the edge of accuracy+slop range for the
radar gun/detector combination. But the 13th harmonic of the A channels
goes from 24.05 to 24.245 GHz which is right across the middle of the
radar band.

I'd expect the worst combination would be for a PCS frequency of 1857.75
which I think equates to PCS channel 250. Somewhere in the diagnostics
of info screen of the phone you can usually find what channel number the
phone is trying to use. Where there's not much PCS buildout, maybe only
the first couple get used, 25 and 50, but in other areas they no doubt
go higher. In any case, it seems likely that any phone operating with a
carrier using A block channels would likely have a 13th harmonic within
range of a radar detectors sweep/scan. By the way, you can get from
channel number to frequency by multiplying channel number by .03 MHz and
adding to the low end frequency. Thus, channel 25 is 1850 + 25*.03 =
1850.75 MHz and the signal centered there is about 1.2 MHz wide so goes
from a bit above 1850 to a bit below 1851.5 MHz.

So while the phone is probably very accurately on frequency (if you can
call a pseudo-noise modulated carrier "on" any frequency) but radar
detector is wide as barn door and almost certain to respond to the 13th
harmonic of any A channel PCS phone that is strong enough.

Sorry if I got carried away, all this may be more than you wanted to
know. (:>)

g

> "g" - thanks for the explanation which makes sense. I'm familiar with
> harmonics but not in the electrical/radio arena. You obviously are. Is a
> 13th order of any magnitude even probable? If so, it has definitely varied
> in my many Sprint phones over the last 5 years. The explanation of the phone
> straining to keep a signal in the fringe and possibly drifting off frequency
> a little sure helps me understand it better. Thanks, Stu

I have & use the A900. It sits about 24 inches below my Bel vector V995 at
all times while driving. I have never triggered the detector with the phone.
Side note...I have saved myself enough fines to but 4 A900's thanks to the
V995, so eat sh*t all you puritans that preach speed limits. And why do they
have speed limits of 45-55 on hiways designed to travel 65?
They want the cash.

"sraike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My Samsung A900 phone keeps setting off my Valentine One radar detector. I
> had one other Sprint phone do the same. Valentine says the phone is
> spewing out something it shouldn't and this is common on CMDA phones. I do
> believe it is the phone as my work phone is an LG CMDA phone on Verizon
> and it does not set off the detector. One or the other has to go as it is
> getting to be quite annoying. Anyone else have this issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Stu
>

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I have & use the A900. It sits about 24 inches below my Bel vector
> V995 at all times while driving. I have never triggered the detector
> with the phone. Side note...I have saved myself enough fines to but 4
> A900's thanks to the V995, so eat sh*t all you puritans that preach
> speed limits. And why do they have speed limits of 45-55 on hiways
> designed to travel 65? They want the cash.
>
I agree and those stupid red lights yet more cash. Yet they go on. How
about those silly no parking signs all a bunch of crap I say I just wish I
could convince my 22 year old neice that is paralized from the waist down
by a speeder that it was the city fault for putting up a speed limit sign

lawyers always find a way.



[email protected]



"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:28:42 GMT, "mikeyhsd" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>also remember anyone who helps you defeat the radar and you have an accident, could be held liable as accessory.

Cite, please. This sounds extremely doubtful.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:57:16 GMT, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:


>I have & use the A900. It sits about 24 inches below my Bel vector V995 at
>all times while driving. I have never triggered the detector with the phone.
>Si

That might be related to the fact that Bel has yet to make any device
that a a correlation between alarms and police radar that is better
than about 1%. Maybe bel finaly gave up and has reduced the false
alarms by clipping the speaker and LED wires.

skip wrote:

>>
> I agree and those stupid red lights yet more cash. Yet they go on. How
> about those silly no parking signs all a bunch of crap I say I just wish I
> could convince my 22 year old neice that is paralized from the waist down
> by a speeder that it was the city fault for putting up a speed limit sign

There can be a distinct difference between simply driving fast, and
driving recklessly. Unfortunately, most law enforcement agencies refuse
to make the distinction. Likewise, they refuse to make the distinction
between restricting speed in areas where high speed is truly dangerous,
and restricting speed purely for the sake of raking in revenue in the
form of fines and surcharges.

Going 50 in a residential area, or even 40 in school zone, IS reckless.
Posting a 50 MPH speed limit on a controlled-access interstate
designed for speeds of at least 65 in good conditions IS greedy.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:22:17 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> My original suggestion was to dump the Valentine and purchase a good
>> radar detector like an Escort.
>
> In the handful of motorcycle and auto forums where I hang out, the
> Valentine V1 is almost universally accepted as being superior to the
> current crop of Escorts. If I had an Escort, I probably wouldn't dump
> it for a V1, but if I were in the market for a new detector, the V1
> would be right at the top of the list, ahead of the Escorts.

I concur. The V1 is the standard to beat (gleaned from *many* motorcycle
forums).

That said I do have an Escort Solo S2 (battery powered) and like it
(very convenient).

Before the road nannies get their panties in a bunch, there are plenty
of areas where I live (Mojave Desert) where you can see a car for miles
and miles. Unless it's hidden. You know, like a "patrol" car/revenue
generator.

Moreover, as I'm on a bike 95% of the time I am in *much* greater
danger, ironically, from a cellphone-talking cager than I am a danger to
any cage.

As long as speed-limits are set for people on Quaaludes I don't see me
losing the RD anytime soon.


--
Mike

take it as you wish.

there are THOUSANDS of cases of advice givers getting sued and implicated in the cases of people who hurt others.



[email protected]



"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:14:56 GMT, "mikeyhsd" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:28:42 GMT, "mikeyhsd" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>also remember anyone who helps you defeat the radar and you have an accident, could be held liable as accessory.
>
>Cite, please. This sounds extremely doubtful.
>
>lawyers always find a way.
>
>[email protected]

I'm going to take that as a 'no'.

--
Paul Miner

Thanks again g. I appreciate the explanation as it helps me understand the
whole deal. Nothing I can do about it other than give up the V1 (not gonna
happen), switch to GSM, take a chance on another model of Sprint phone
(probably not gonna happen either) or shut the phone in the trunk away from
the detector.

Gadgets sure don't make our lives any easier

Thanks,

Stu


"g" <[email protected]> wrote in message>
>
>Sorry if I got carried away, all this may be more than >you wanted to know.
>(:>)
>
> g