What is FOV at 8x magnification?

FOV

Bottom line on this one, as I see it: Very good notes, officer is an operator and trainer, looking at badge # I will guess this person has years of experience, the technical arguments being raised are not good...with his training and experience things like how wide is the beam, sweep error or visibility at night can be easily explained...I say talk to prosecutor and see what kind of deal they will be willing to give...perhaps lower speed down to 3 points or even disobey sign at 2 points...

What is the Field of vision at 8x magnification? Can you answer that question or not?

There will be sweep error.

I do not know what the field of vision will be...there may be sweep error if the lidar was being moved while getting a reading...the average of least squares will guard against the sweep errors...sweep errors is more common when hitting the side of a big target such as a tractor trailer, taking a shot along the long box trailer...if the lidar hit the front plate, or headlight there is very little chance of sweep error...if you move from the front grill area to a higher point further back while taking a reading then it is possible, but I still say with the operator's training and experience that is not a good point of attack...

Can you expand on the average of least squares will guard against sweep error? Is that your personal theory?

What will happen to the lidar algorithm if the sweep error is bad enough?

Do you know why FOV is important here?

No, it is not my personal theory...one lidar reading is compared to the one before it...there needs to be a few readings in agreement to produce a valid reading...if there is a sweep error the difference in the readings would be noted and tossed out (by the lidar)...just dumbing it down a bit...

You stated the average of least squares will guard against sweep error. I would like you to expand on the theory that you learned in training.

You can dumb it down anyway you like. If you have 2 sweep error readings and 3 "good" ones how will the average of least squares guard against the 2 sweep error readings?

It recognizes a sweep error as it is happening and won't display a reading...it will then get another reading on the other part of the vehicle, if the next readings are in agreement it will display the reading...

argyll wrote:

FOV

LMAO!!!!!

Zatota wrote:

argyll wrote:

FOV

LMAO!!!!!

I did not get it at first... now I do. lol

The average of least squares MAY guard against SOME sweep errors, but is not a guarantee that it will eliminate all sweep errors.

People are getting hung over the term least squares. All you need to know is that an average doesn't guard against outlier results and is affected by them.

The lidar algorithm doesn't discard sweep error results. It discards outlier results. If there is too much sweep the sweeping results might not be the outlier result.

On 8x magnification there is less light and image stability than no magnification. The FOV (no I will not) is 1/8 as much as normal view. A 300 meter shot is considered long (er) range and a stand should be used. In reality, whether officer's are cognizant of the fact or not, they can't keep their hands steady enough and have to pan too much on a 80km+ moving target 300 meters out in the dark. Any intelligent person would recognize there would be huge uncertainty in any reading coming back at that distance not only because of sweep error but because of beam width and inclusion of other objects at potentially a 1.8 meter radius circle around target.

There's not much panning involved when the cross hairs are a licence plate of a vehicle coming straight at you.

There is more panning than you realize as target is moving rapidly and has to stay in middle of cross hairs. Also as I stated there is no stand, right? That means there is handshake. Then you have the problem of beam width and 1.8m radius around car that lidar is all the time measuring at 300m.

The lidar/radar guns are only tested by the manufacturer under ideal conditions so as not to fail. I know for a fact the police force doesn't test them or maintain them and claim it's done by a 3rd party. That's fraudulent as they literally have no idea if they are even being maintained and only passed it off to a 3rd party so they don't have to answer these questions very easily in court. An appeal judge that I had didn't even know that and had to take a 3 hour recess to sort that fact along with others out.

Do you honestly think you could hit a car 300 meters away in the dark moving at between 80 to 121km /hr with a gun? I don't even think a sniper can make that shot most of the time from the ground nevermind an overweight police officer that's very unskilled compared to the sniper sitting in an upright position possibly with a donut or coffee in his other hand. It is the same principle except instead of bullets you are firing off light beams. Yes you don't have a recoil, but still, you can't make the shot and you know it.