Traffic Radar System with Automated Tuning Fork Test Feature
20170343651 · 2017-11-30
Assignee
Inventors
Cpc classification
G01S13/52
PHYSICS
International classification
Abstract
A traffic radar system (TRS) utilizing an automated test process which aids the operator in quickly conducting comprehensive system tuning fork tests that includes front and rear antennas and stationary, moving opposite, and moving same-lane operations. The automated process has the ability to select the proper radar antenna and proper mode of operation for each step of the test. The process will measure the input fork signals and report if the signals are within the specified tolerance. Optionally, the process can be set to not allow the radar system to enter the normal operating mode if the tuning fork tests have not been successfully completed.
Claims
1. In combination with a traffic radar system, a tuning fork test method comprising: transmitting a radar signal from a first antenna; placing a first tuning fork vibrating at a first frequency in front of said first antenna; determining a first speed of said first tuning fork; placing a second tuning fork vibrating at a second frequency in front of said first antenna; determining a second speed of said second tuning fork; determining a differential speed between said first speed and said second speed; and indicating a pass or fail from predetermined criteria.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising prompting a user to strike and place said first tuning fork in front of said first antenna.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising comparing said first speed to a first expected speed.
4. The method of claim 3 further comprising determining if said first speed is within a predetermined tolerance of said first expected speed.
5. The method of claim 4 further comprising displaying a pass/fail message for said first speed for a predetermined time.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein said first speed is stored.
7. The method of claim 1 further comprising prompting a user to strike and place said second tuning fork in front of said first antenna.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising comparing said second speed to a second expected speed.
9. The method of claim 8 further comprising determining if said second speed is within a predetermined tolerance of said second expected speed.
10. The method of claim 9 further comprising displaying a pass/fail message for said second speed for a predetermined time.
11. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining if a second antenna is present.
12. The method of claim 11 wherein if a second antenna is present, transmitting a radar signal from said second antenna; placing said second tuning fork vibrating at said second frequency in front of said second antenna; determining said second speed of said second tuning fork; placing said first tuning fork vibrating at said first frequency in front of said second antenna; determining said first speed of said first tuning fork; determining a differential speed between said second speed and said first speed; and indicating a pass or fail from predetermined criteria.
13. The method of claim 12 further comprising prompting a user to strike and place said second tuning fork in front of said second antenna.
14. The method of claim 12 further comprising comparing said second speed to said second expected speed.
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising determining if said second speed is within said predetermined tolerance of said second expected speed.
16. The method of claim 15 further comprising displaying a pass/fail message for said second speed for a predetermined time.
17. The method of claim 12 wherein said second speed is stored.
18. The method of claim 12 further comprising prompting a user to strike and place said first tuning fork in front of said second antenna.
19. The method of claim 12 further comprising comparing said first speed to said first expected speed.
20. The method of claim 19 further comprising determining if said first speed is within said predetermined tolerance of said first expected speed.
21. The method of claim 20 further comprising displaying a pass/fail message for said first speed for a predetermined time.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0012]
[0013]
[0014]
[0015]
[0016]
[0017]
[0018]
[0019]
[0020]
[0021]
[0022]
[0023]
[0024]
[0025]
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0026] Turning more particularly to the drawings,
[0027] First, the lower speed tuning fork is struck on a hard, nonmetallic surface and placed in front of the TRS antenna. Block 108. The speed, shown as 35 mph for PATROL 111, is displayed and the user compares the PATROL speed 111 to the speed stamped on the tuning fork. While still holding the lower speed fork in front of the antenna, a second higher speed tuning fork is struck on a hard, nonmetallic surface and placed in front of the antenna. Block 110. The primary target area 113 should display the difference between the speed stamped on the lower speed tuning fork and the higher speed tuning fork.
[0028] It is completely the responsibility of the operator to make the calculation of the difference of the two forks and to verify the displayed reading for ‘Target’ speed 113 is within tolerance. The allowed displayed reading tolerance is typically +/−1 mph (1 km/h). Block 112. An example of the possible displayed values is shown when a 35 lower tuning fork and a 65 higher tuning fork are used for the test (114).
[0029] In the preferred embodiment, the invention provides a test sequence that automatically sets the operational mode of the TRS in preparation for the tuning fork test.
[0030] Another advantage of the invention is to inform the operator as to when and which tuning fork to strike and place in front of the antenna.
[0031] To continue the fork test the operator rings the low fork (35 mph) and places it in front of the front antenna. The TRS automatically measures the fork signal, converts it to a truncated speed value and compares it to the expected low fork speed value. The measured value must be within the allowed tolerance, typically +/−1, of the expected value for the test to pass. Referring to
[0032] The next step in the fork test is for the operator to ring the high fork and place it in front of the front antenna. Another advantage to the invention is the low fork measurement from the preceding step may be saved for the calculations in the results testing in the following steps. The operator is not required to continue holding the low fork as in the traditional test (see
[0033] The next step in traditional fork test would be for the operator to calculate the difference of the high fork and low fork and ensure that the displayed value is within the correct tolerance of the difference value (see
[0034] In the preferred embodiment, the fork test for the rear antenna may follow much the same sequence as the front antenna, with the following exception. Since the moving opposite mode was tested during the front antenna tests, the moving same-direction mode may be tested during the rear antenna tests. Referring to
[0035] During the moving same-direction test for the front antenna the high fork is rung first, whereas in the moving opposite test the low fork was rung first. Previous to this invention, it would be easy for the operator to mistakenly follow the same test routine for the rear antenna, ringing the low fork first during the moving same-direction test, making it difficult it determine why the test results are not correct. Referring to
[0036] The next sequence in the tests is for the operator to ring the low fork in front of the rear antenna. In the preferred embodiment, the high fork can now be removed as the system has saved this measurement for later use in the results test. Referring to
[0037] The next step in the traditional fork test would be for the operator to calculate the sum of the high and low forks and ensure the displayed value is within the correct tolerance of the displayed sum value. The advantage of the invention is the TRS will automatically calculate the sum of the high and low fork measurements, display the results, and pass or fail the test based on the sum results being within the allowed tolerance. Referring to
[0038] It is to be understood that while certain now preferred forms of this invention have been illustrated and described, it is not limited thereto except insofar as such limitations are included in the following claims.