MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

lllllllllllllllllllllll.l lllllll

3 1293 01021 9560

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

LABORATORY TESTING OF ACROSS THE ROAD
LASER SPEED MEASUREMENT DEVICES

presented by

Stefano Angelo Mario Lassini

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS degree in Electrical Engineering

 

flea/5%

Major professor

 

Date 5

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE It RETURN BOXtonmovothb mum mm
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or bdoro duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU ioAn AMnnItivo Action/Ema! Opportunlty institution
W1

 

LABORATORY TESTING OF ACROSS THE ROAD
LASER SPEED MEASUREMENT DEVICES

By

Stefano Angelo Mario Lassini

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in panial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Electrical Engineering

1994

ABSTRACT

LABORATORY TESTING OF ACROSS THE ROAD
LASER SPEED MEASUREMENT DEVICES

By

Stefano Angelo Mario Lassini

In this dissertation we describe the instrumentation developed and the testing procedure
used to test in a laboratory setting Across the Road Laser Speed Measurement Devices
[AR-LSMD]. Also, we develop a theoretical model for the various possible error modes
for this class of speed measurement devices. Said model is then used to characterize some
of the erroneous readings detected in the readings of a specific AR—LSMD that we were
allowed to test. As a result of our study we developed the technology and the hardware
needed to test AR-LSMDs and we were able to provide to the manufacturer of the device
that we tested significant information that could be used to improve the performance of

their product.

iii

To My Family

Acknowledgments

I wish to recognize the contributes provided to this project by Dr. P. David Fisher, the
director of the MSU Instrumentation Design and Testing Laboratory and my academic
advisor during my graduate program. I am also grateful to J amillah Ervin for the help she

provided during the data collection phase of my tests.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures

1. Introduction

2. Across-the-road laser speed measurement

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Across-the-road speed measurement
Beam misalignment
Vertical tilt

Horizontal tilt

3. Speed simulator for AR-LSMD

3.1
3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Design rationale

The electronic target simulator

The Control Unit

3.3.1 The 68hcll Microcontroller

3.3.2 Memory decoding and bus drivers

3.3.3 Power supply

The control software

3.4.1 Writing low level code on a microcontroller
3.4.2 The user interface

Software state machine

Implementations details

4. Testing of an across-the-road LSMD

4.1

4.2

The device under test

Testing procedures

Page

vii

10
10
1 1
20
20
23
23
24
24
25
27
29
3o
30

31

Page

4.3 Room temperature test results 32
5. Project review 39
5.1 Contributions 39
5.2 AR-LSMD simulator performance 40
5.3 Performance of the AR-LSMD under test 42
Appendix A: Speed-Accuracy Testing 45
References 70

vi

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.4

5.1

List of Figures

Typical AR-LSMD

Example of beam misalignment

Vertical tilt

Horizontal tilt

Electronic target simulator - block diagram

Laser pulses from the AR-LSMD under test

Demodulated laser pulses at the input of the gating circuit
Pulse train for a simulated 65 mph. target

Infrared emissions from the ETS

Block diagram of the control unit

Observed errors in the measurements of the device under test
Detail of the laser modulation of the AR-LSMD under test
Quantization error versus target speed in the device under test

Quantization errors in the MSU AR-LSMD speed simulator

vii

Page

12
14
15
17
18
21
31
33
35
39

1: Introduction

The MSU Instrumentation Design and Testing Laboratory has been for many years
actively involved with the testing of various speed measurement devices available to the
law enforcement community and with the development of related standards both at the
State and Federal level. The newest technological development in this field is represented
by the Laser Speed Measurement Devices, or LSMDs. These devices have been devel-
oped to overcome some of the limitations of the more commonly used Doppler radar
devices, but their introduction has required the development of a new set of testing and
training standards.

This thesis details the development of the hardware and software necessary to test in a lab-
oratory environment a class of these laser devices, the Across the Road LSMD, or Ar-
LSMD. Moreover, in this work we developed a model to describe some of the errors that
were detected during the testing of a specific AR-LSMD that was loaned to our laboratory
for conducting out preliminary tests.

With the simulator that we developed we were able to perform tests on this device that
would have been otherwise impractical or impossible to conduct in the field and this led us
to discover inaccuracies in the measurements taken by it when the target is travelling at
high speeds. Such inaccuracies were not evident in the field testing phase because the lim-
itations of the test vehicle and of the test track did not allow us to test at speeds greater
than 70 miles per hour.

The results of the lab testing, together with the theoretical model that we developed to
describe them, will now allow the manufacturer to correct the problems that we detected
in the design of the device we tested, so as to make this device compliant with the Michi-

gan Speed Measurement Task Force standards. To our knowledge, our simulator is the first

device of this kind to be developed and it will serve both the testing and training needs of
our lab and the research and development needs of the manufacturers of such devices.
Chapter 2 of this thesis details the theory of operation of an AR-LSMD, including the
advantages and disadvantages of such devices. Chapter 3 describes the Simulator that was
developed as part of this thesis to allow us to test AR-LSMDs in a laboratory setting.
Chapter 4 contains a description of the test performed on an actual AR-LSMD and an
analysis of the experimental results of the laboratory test.

Chapter 5, finally, contains an assessment of the simulator’s performance and of the per-

formance of the device we tested.

2: Across-the-road laser speed measurement

This chapter presents an overview of the theory of operation of across the road laser speed
measurement devices and an analysis of the advantages of AR-LSMDs and of the possible
errors that can be introduced in the measurements of such devices by an improper setup

and alignment.

2.1: Across-the-road speed measurement:

The principle of across the road laser speed measurement is very simple and seemingly
foolproof, relying on the definition of speed itself. A typical device for this kind of mea-
surement consists of two laser emitters placed on the side of the road, as shown in Figure
2.1, and some sort of detection and timing device used to determine how long it takes for a

target to travel the known distance D between the two laser beams.

 

 

 

 

Target

 

 

Fig. 2.1: Typical AR-LSMD

If T is the time taken by the target to go from the first to the second beam, the target veloc-

ity can be easily computed with the formula:

Vmeas =

HIU

There are several advantages in using AR-LSMDs: among these the first is the almost
complete undetectability of the speed measuring device. Unlike radar and, to a far smaller
extent, down the road LSMDs, this device does not illuminate the target before the mea-
surement is taken, so conventional detectors like the ones currently available on the mar-
ket will not be able to signal the presence of an AR-LSMD.

Another advantage of this apparatus is a good target discrimination without the need of
physically aiming each individual vehicle. This reduces the fatigue in the operator and, in
combination with a computer controlled camera, enables unattended operation, therefore

possibly freeing up law enforcement personnel normally devoted to speed enforcement.

There are, however, some questions about the possibility of introducing errors in an
across-the-road device by improperly setting up the measuring device or by possible mis-
alignment of the measuring beams that could occur during extensive field usage.

In our analysis we have identified three possible sources of geometrical problems that.

alone or in combination, could result in significant errors in the measurements taken.

2.2 Beam misalignment:

The first source of errors is the possible lack of parallelism in the two laser beams. As we
can see in Figure 2.2, if the two beams are not parallel the effective range width on the tar-

get, D’, will be different than the design specification, D.

In this case, the effective range width, D’, is:
D' = D+(tan61—tan92)xX
Where 91 and 92 are the angular deviations of the two beams measured counterclockwise

from their nominal position and X is the distance between the beam emitter and the target.

The resulting error in the determination of the target speed can then be computed as,

Verr = Vmeas - Veff

where Veff is the effective target speed. By operating the proper substitutions Verr can also

be computed as:

(tanOl — tan62) XX

Verr = T

l D l
.6 .
Target D, :l:

01 02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2.2: Example of beam misalignment

As an example, let us assume 91 = -2 degrees, 92 =2 degrees, X = 4 meters and a speed of
65 mph, to which, assuming an initial beam separation of 400 millimeters and the above
beam angles, would correspond a time T = 9.614 milliseconds. With these parameters the
error can be computed from the above formulas to be about 12.55 meters per second, or
about 28 miles per hour. Because this kind of beam misalignment can occur for a variety
of causes during the operational life of an AR-LSMD, and because of the magnitude of the
error that can be introduced by it, it is necessary for the operator of each device to have a
way to detect this problem before using the device on the road. A simple device like a
measuring stick with laser detectors at both ends could be used in the field to verify the

parallelism of the two beams before operating the device.

 

 

 

 

Road Surface

Fig. 2.3: Vertical tilt

2.3 Vertical tilt

The second source of errors is the lack of parallelism between the plane containing the two
laser beams and the road surface. In this situation, depicted in figure 2.3, the effective
width of the measurement range is reduced proportionally to the cosine of the inclination
of the laser emitter. In this situation the measured speed will always be higher than the

actual speed of the target as shown by the following:

D' = DxcosO
D DxcosO
Verr - T——TT—

As an example, let us consider an inclination of 10 degrees and a target moving at 65
m.p.h., and an initial beam separation of 400 millimeters. In this case the speed that would
be registered by the AR-LSMD would be 66 miles per hour: much less than before but still
unacceptable under Michigan guidelines. In a similar scenario, a tilt of 25 degrees would
cause a reading of 71.7 miles per hour, or an error of 6.7 m.p.h.

As we see, also this error can be significant and is usually due to incorrect setup of the unit
in the field. Current devices do not have any way to automatically detect this problem,
even if some provide a bubble level in the mounting base to check the alignment. Without
an automatic cutoff on the measuring device it would be possible to challenge the validity

of a measurement taken by an AR-LSMD due to the above effect.

2.4 Horizontal tilt

The last kind of geometrical distortion in an AR-LSMD’s measurement occurs when the
two laser beams are not perpendicular to the direction of travel of the target, as shown in
figure 2.4.

In this final scenario the actual distance traveled by the target vehicle, D’, will always be
greater than the inter-beam spacing of the measuring device. This will always introduce a
negative error, so that the speed measured by the AR-LSMD will always be less than the
actual speed of the target. The magnitude of such error can be computed easily according

to the two following formulas:

D' = Dx secO
M

_L#—

D9 \ e
T-arget

Fig. 2.4: Horizontal tilt

 

and

D-Dx 0
Verr: sec

 

Again, if we consider a tilt of 25 degrees and a target speed of 65 m.p.h. the measured
speed would be 58.9 m.p.h., thus the error would be -6.1 m.p.h.

Because the error introduced by this particular geometric distortion of the measuring
range is always in favor of the motorist whose speed is being measured it is not as critical,
from the legal standpoint, to have a mean of automatically detecting it.

This notwithstanding, it is important that the operator of an AR-LSMD is aware of the
existence of this kind of error when setting up the measurement apparatus in order to

achieve the best accuracy from the instrument.

3: Speed simulator for AR-LSMD

This chapter contains a description of the simulator that was designed as part of this thesis
to allow our laboratory to perform the tests needed to certify the compliance of a particular
AR-LSMD to the standards set forth by the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force for
this kind of device.

Usually such a simulator would be provided by the manufacturer of the device undergoing
the certification tests, but in the case of the device that we tested the mechanical simulator
that was used for its certification in Europe was neither accurate nor flexible enough to be

used for testing under the much more stringent standards in force in Michigan.

3.1: Design rationale
In order to certify the compliance of any LSMD to the standards adopted in Michigan our

laboratory needs to be able to test the accuracy and the precision of its readings at any
speed between 5 and 195 miles per hour. Moreover these tests need to be conducted at
power supply levels ranging from 10.8 Volts to 16.3 Volts and at temperatures from -30
degrees Celsius to + 60 degrees Celsius.

The above requirements are obviously impossible to meet during the field evaluation of a
device, therefore it is paramount to have a way to simulate a speeding vehicle in the labo-
ratory environment and in such a way that the simulated vehicle is indistinguishable from
an actual vehicle to the device under test.

For across-the-road laser devices the solution originally proposed by the manufacturer
was purely mechanical. The simulator that was supplied to us by the manufacturer of the
AR-LSMD consisted of a toothed belt mounted on two wooden gears, with a white strip
painted on the outside. By controlling the rotational speed of the gears, that were driven by

an AC motor, it was possible to control the linear speed of the simulated target, the white

10

11

section painted on the belt.

While this device worked, it was not accurate nor fast enough to meet our testing needs. It
suffered from overheating in the motor’s bearings that were limiting the maximum speed
achievable to less than 100 miles per hour and only for brief periods of time. In addition,
the device required quite a long time to be set up, it was cumbersome to operate and inad-

equate for the goals of MSU’s Instrumentation Design and Testing Laboratory.

It was immediately clear that the solution would have to be an electronic, computer con-
trolled timing system interfaced to some kind of device able to simulate the presence of a
target in front of the laser emitter and detector assemblies of the AR-LSMD.

Several possible solutions were investigated, including combinations of mirrors and high
speed mechanical shutters, electro-acoustic modulators, Q-switches and other devices nor-
mally used as safety interlocks on laser systems. While in principle any of the above
devices should have worked, we were not able to find a supplier that could provide a
device that could fit our design parameters and the constraints imposed by the device
under test, such as minimum aperture size and minimum insertion loss in the case of the
electro-acoustic modulators. A manufacturer would have been able to provide us with a
custom Q-switch that could meet the minimum requirements, but the cost of two such

devices would have been prohibitive (on the order of $30,000 per unit).

3.2: The Electronic Target Simulator

None of the laser switches that we investigated was able to fulfill all of the design require-
ments of the AR-LSMD simulator. Therefore we had to develop our own custom hardware
to interface to the laser beams. The result is what we call an Electronic Target Simulator,

or ETS.

12

 

 

.9028 BEE 923-5.

 

 

 

 

.5580 homa— 923i<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:80 e823

 

 

u

mHm

 

 

gage—agave
93 58.5

 

 

 

 

 

:85 3.6 taxi...— It

 

 

:35 $55

L

 

 

 

 

Tr

 

 

 

mom—.53 .83...—

39: .8280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 3.1: Electronic target simulator - block Diagram

13

As shown in figure 3.1, the ETS is composed of five functional blocks: the laser detector
and demodulator circuit, the gating circuit, the power supplies, the emitter drive circuit
and the infrared emitter. The detector and demodulator circuit receives the laser pulses
emitted by the AR-LSMD’s lasers and transforms them in a logic level pulse train that can
be handled by the rest of the circuit. The Device that we tested modulates its laser beams
with a CW scheme where the lasers are turned on for 10 microseconds every 142 micro-
seconds. Figure3.2 shows the oscilloscope trace of the Start and Stop beams of the device
under test as detected by a Siemens PIN photodiode identical to the ones used in the detec-
tors the AR-LSMD loaned to us, while figure3.3 shows the corresponding demodulated
signals as measured with a Fluke 97 digital storage oscilloscope at the input of the gating
circuitry.

The gating circuit controls the output of the Electronic Target Simulator. In the quiescent
state a ‘0’ logic level is applied to the Gate input of this circuit, thus inhibiting the emitter
drive circuits: in this situation the infrared emitter is turned off and the LSMD does not
detect any targets. During a simulation the Controller unit will apply a positive going
pulse to the Gate input of each of the two ETSs whose duration is equal to the time that a
target of a given length will take to travel in front of the AR-LSMD at a given speed. The
time skew between the rising and falling edges of the Start and the Stop pulses corre-
sponds to the speed of the simulated vehicle.

The Emitter Drive circuit provides the signals necessary to control the Infrared Emitter.
The switching device that generates those signals is an International Rectifiers HEXFET:
this particular MOSFET transistor has a very large current handling capability and a very
low “on” resistance, thus is able to drive many different kinds of emitters as needed.
Although conceptually simple, this circuit required the biggest design effort in the whole

ETS. The reason for this is that we were not allowed to conduct any measurement on the

 

HE

Eda
mzm
>40
me:
who
HmU

 

 

l4

mnqumth
Mvm\mH\NO
NHm
O
m5 om
>8 OOHI
Um
>8 OOH

mwuHmuwH
¢m\mH\NO
NHm
O
m5 om
>8 OOH
0.8.
>8 OOH

EH9
Eda
mzm
Hun—
mg
who
.HmU
29¢

 

 

m

 

AN

 

 

 

~1—

 

 

 

H-
-n—
Hi-
du—
ur-

 

«L-
-¢-
4»-
.4-
'4»
Hu-
‘-
HI-
-U-
Hi—
-0-
4h
1h
~1—
HI—
'9-
ar-
dr-
-II-
.4-
4!-
di-
H»-
+

 

 

4+-
HI-

.4.-

.l.
-1h
«r—
+-
ub-

 

 

 

 

 

4|—
uh
Hr-
"l'

 

.0-
di-

 

 

 

Fig. 3.2: Laser pulses from the AR-LSMD under test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

«SHHHHMH 2H9

$3030 949

mHm mam

m- wan

m: OOH we:

> mm.m- mmo

um qmu

> m 298
a

 

NNHOHuMH
¢m\mo\mo
NHm
NI
m5 OOH
>8 ONm
Dam
> N

SHE
FANG
mzm
V1.5
mg
“who
JmU
294.

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 3.3: Demodulated laser pulses at the input of the gating circuit

l6

AR-LSMD detector circuits and we were not provided by the manufacturer of the device
under test with specifications on the acceptable optical power levels to present to the
receivers. This, combined with the fact that the LSMD under test appears to dynamically
adjust the gain on its detectors to compensate for background radiation, required a large
amount of trial and error experimentation to find a combination of optical power levels on
the output of the ETS that could reliably drive the detectors without causing them to satu-
rate and consequently introduce errors in the speed measurements.

Finally, the infrared emitter transforms the pulses coming from the drive circuit back into
infrared energy at the same wavelength of the lasers emitted by the test device. Figure3.4
shows the pulse trains corresponding to a target travelling at 65 miles per hour, while fig-
ure3.5 shows the output infrared signal from the ETS, detected using the same PIN diode
used in figure 3.2. As we can see by comparing these two figures the signal emitted from
the device we tested is indistinguishable from the one generated by our ETS.

In our initial design we used a gallium arsenide infrared laser diode with a center emission
wavelength of 900 nanometers that was supplied to us by the manufacturer of the device
that we were testing. After a few experiments with unreliable outcomes we decided to
switch to an infrared LED that has its emission peak at the same wavelength of the lasers
that we were previously using but that has the advantage of a better control to obtain the
desired optical power levels. The lasers, even at the minimum drive current necessary for
initiating the lasing effect, proved to be too powerful and to invariably saturate the receiv-
ers of the AR-LSMD.

The complete Electronic Target Simulator is encased in a custom made steel enclosure. On
one side of this enclosure is an aluminum flange that mates to the front of the AR-LSMD
emitters and that has the necessary ports and shields to transfer the infrared signals to and

from the ETS without having them interfere with each other. Figure 3.6 shows a picture of

 

SHE
BANG
mzm
>49
meg
mmO
JED

 

17

 

mnvummuOH

nHum\OH\MO
NHm
HI

m8 ON

> mm.m|
03

> N

mwummHOH
HVm\OH\MO

>8 0mm

TE.

BANG
mSm
NAG
mg
who
HmU

 

 

 

 

 

—0-

 

 

 

Hu—
4-
uh-
—I-
«L-
db-
T

 

ult-
—n—
.rl-
-ip-
dr-
.0-
‘E
—u—
.0-
dr-
4.—
‘l‘
«I—
‘l-

 

 

 

db
db—
~0-
Hi-
«>-

 

.1!-
«e
di-
fit-
-0-
.4.—
Hu—
-0-
qu-
qu-
di-
Jy-
dr-

 

Pulse train for a simulated 65 m.p.h. target

d.
db
HI—
.4-
4..
—U-
o
o

 

fi—
«I—
-0-
+-
di-
Ah
~0-
«4:—
db

 

 

Fig. 3.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONHOOuMH
¢m\mO\mo
NHm
O
m5 om
>8 OOHI
Dd
>8 OOH

r:

EB
$8
28
my:
mac
EU
25

 

18

Q

 

mHumOUMH
¢m\mo\mo
NHm

O
m5 om

>8 OOH
0.4
>8 OOH

2H5
94D
mSm
VHO
m9:
who
HmU
29¢

 

 

 

d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«Jr-
Hr-

 

«>-
4'-
H:-
H:-
-o-
I”.
+
‘0'
~0-
db-
.4?-
Id!-
Hr-

 

1 1 A I
T T l

 

du-
«r-
di-
di-
.4.
.0-
'0-
db
«r-

J
T

 

 

 

 

 

 

H:-
41-
J.
4»-
HI-
1}-

Fig 3.5: Infrared emissions from the ETS

 

 

 

/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

two completed Electronic Target Simulator boxes with the mounting flange and the exter-
nal connectors in evidence. The four pin connector carries the power, ground and logic
signals from the Control unit, while the BNC connector can be used to interface to an
independent oscilloscope or other timing device to independently verify the quality of the

signals produced by the AR-LSMD Simulator.

20

3.3: the Control Unit

The two ETS boxes need precisely timed control pulses to simulate a moving target: in our
AR-LSMD Simulator these pulses are generated under microprocessor control by a Con-
trol Unit built around a Motorola MC68HC711E9 microcontroller.

To simplify the development process we decided to use a Motorola 68HC11 EVBU evalu-
ation board as the platform for our custom hardware: this board provides a socket for a
68HC11 microcontroller chip and the support circuitry necessary to connect it to a PC or
any other host provided with an RS-232 port. This evaluation board also comes with a
simple but effective debugger that allowed us to develop the time critical part of the Simu-
lator’s code in a fairly efficient way.

The 68HC11 EVBU does not have an external memory interface on board, but it provides
some limited breadboarding space where the needed circuitry can be assembled. Moreover
the clock circuit provided on board is based on a ceramic resonator that we felt not accu-
rate enough for our purpose, so we substituted it with a precision, temperature compen-
sated oscillator.

Figure 3.6 on the next page shows a block diagram of the Control Unit of our simulator,

with five functional units on it.

3.3.1: The 68HC11 Microcontroller

The heart of the control logic for the AR-LSMD Simulator is contained in the microcon-
troller. The 68HC11 is a very versatile 8-bit microcontroller that was selected for this
application for several reasons, the most important of which is the highly sophisticated
timer chain integrated on the chip itself as one of the peripherals. This timer subsystem

allowed us to generate very precise and very repeatable timing pulses under software con-

21

 

 

baa 830m

 

 

 

 

58-9: 08.885 “we:

 

 

 

 

 

803.6 2.: 38:00

 

 

 

 

 

Samanm 88won
98 88.888 80802

 

 

 

8368:8808“
mm: _ bumww 20.882

 

 

 

Fig. 3.6: Block diagram of the control unit

22

trol without the worry of the uncertainty that is always present when timing delays are
generated in software in an environment where several interrupts could be active at the
same time.

The 68HC11 timer system has up to 5 output channels that can be independently con-
trolled or that can be linked together to act synchronously to each other. [ref 1]

In our design we used two of these channels to control the Start and the Stop ETS, so that
up to 3 more channels can be added in the future to support AR-LSMDs that use more
than two laser beams to achieve better target discrimination.

Each channel is controlled by scheduling a transition [SET, RESET, TOGGLE or TRI-
STATE] to happen when a free running 16-bit counter reaches the count specified in the
control register for the specific channel. Once the control registers are properly set the
scheduled transitions will happen without further software intervention and independently
from the execution state of the Central Processing Unit. Once a transition has occurred a
flag will be raised for the corresponding channel so that the software knows when to
schedule the next event.

The free-running counter that provides the master time reference for all the timer chain is
driven directly by the E-clock of the microprocessor, optionally divided by a prescaler,
with an 8-MHz master clock, like on our board. One timer tick can then be either 500 ns, 2
us, 4 us or 8 us, and it can be selected by software only in the first 64 clock cycles after a
reset, to protect the time critical operation of the timer chain from faulty software.
Another reason for our microprocessor choice is the flexibility of the memory interface of
this chip. By properly setting two jumpers on the evaluation board the 68HC11 can be
rebooted in either single chip or extended memory mode, and for debug purposes it can
even be rebooted from the serial communication port rather than from the code resident in

ROM.

23

3.3.2: Memory decoding and bus drivers

Due to the size of the code needed for the user interface of the simulator we decided to
operate the 68HC11 in its expanded memory configuration, where ports B and C are used
as a multiplexed address and data bus. By using an 8-bit wide latch and a few logic gates
we interfaced to this bus a 27C256 EPROM that can hold up to 32 kilobytes of code, thus
leaving space for future upgrades to the user interface or for the addition of extra function-
ality in the control software.

Particular attention was also placed on the lines that carry the control signals to the ETS
boxes. In order to minimize problems with noise margins on these lines we used high cur-
rent bus drivers on the Control Unit for these signals. The Start and Stop signals are con-
nected to the ETS via shielded twisted-pair cables that also carry the necessary power and
ground signals for the target simulators. To minimize reflections of the control signals on
the transmission lines from the Control Unit to the ETS boxes each end of the transmis-

sion line is terminated into a matched load.

3.3.3: Power supply

The whole simulator is powered by a 12 Volt, 750 milliampere DC supply with a maxi-
mum tolerance of plus or minus 10%. On the Control Unit, a linear regulator is used to
provide a 5 Volts power supply for the microprocessor and the rest of the logic circuits of
the Control Unit and of the ETSs. To minimize the interference of switching noise with the
detectors present in the ETS, the logic power supply is capacitively decoupled in several
critical places on the various circuit boards. Moreover each ETS has 2000 OF of tank
capacitance on the 12 Volts supply to absorb the transients created when switching on and

off the infrared emitters.

24

3.4: The control software

The across-the-road LSMD simulator relies heavily on the control software for its opera-
tion. We can distinguish two main entities in the code that controls the device, the user
interface code and the ETS firing routines. These two sections of the code were developed
separately using different techniques in order to produce eflicient code that could be easily
debugged and whose operation is fully predictable in the time critical sections, like the

ETS firing control.

3.4.1: Writing low level code on a microcontroller

The ETS firing control routines are the core of the whole speed simulator and as such they
need to be completely certifiable to ensure that the speed being generated really corre-
sponds to the speed selected by the operator and that there cannot be undetected anoma-
lous situations that could generate false outputs.

In order to fulfill these criteria we decided to write this part of the code in assembly lan-
guage and to be careful as to unroll all loops and minimize the amount of branching in the
time critical sections, so that there would be only one execution path possible at any given
time. As a result of this approach we wrote three version of the firing routines, each one
slightly different and each specialized for a specific kind of simulation: single target simu-
lation, two separate target simulation and two overlapping target simulation.

The cost paid in terms of increased code space was minimal, especially when compared to
the size of the user interface code, and we feel that the capability of predicting exactly the
sequence of events during a time critical simulation far outweights it.

Each version of the firing routine takes as input the speed and the length of the target in
terms of timer ticks as computed by the user interface code. After synchronizing with a

roll-over of the free running counter this routine schedules the necessary edge transitions

25

on the two control channel that drive the ETS boxes. After scheduling each set of transi-
tions the code will wait in a busy loop for the event to occur before scheduling the next set.
Control returns to the calling routine only after the full target simulation has been accom-
plished.

The firing routines were the first part of the code to be developed and they have been
tested extensively since the very early revisions of the hardware, to the point that we are

now confident that they are highly reliable.

3.4.2: The user interface

The other part of the control software is the user interface and the various housekeeping
routines that are needed for the proper operation of the simulator. The design constraints
on this part of the code are very different than the ones posed on the ETS firing routines,
therefore the design choices that were made are quite different in this section of the pro-
gram.

One of the original design requirements of the AR-LSMD simulator was ease of opera-
tion, so that it could be used without the need of extensive training. This required a simple,
menu based user interface that could hide the details of the operation of the simulator from
the user as well as the capability to operate in conjunction with standard hardware and
software, like IBM compatible personal computers and their operating systems.

Another constrain on the development of this section of the code was the fact that it was
not possible to develop and debug it directly on the target microcontroller due to the lim-
ited size of the Random Access Memory available on chip, only 512 bytes.

These requirements prompted us to develop the user interface in ANSI C, so that it could
be modified quickly to adjust to the changes in the evolving hardware. Having the inter-

face written in C also allowed us to debug the algorithms used by compiling it on a Sun

26

workstation with a very quick and efficient compile and debug cycle, without having to
burn an EPROM for each new version of the code. The advantages of this approach were
numerous in terms of development time and complexity of the final product: the time
needed to correct minor mistakes went from hours to minutes, and the C compiler auto-
matically provided support for all the floating point calculations needed to compute the fir-
ing .times for the ETSs from the targets speed and length and from the dimensional
parameters of the AR-LSMD being tested.

Notwithstanding the advantages of a high level programming language, writing C code for
a microcontroller like the 68HC11 could sometimes introduce some subtle problems,
mainly due to the limited amount of memory available and the fact that it is shared by both
variables, system stack and user stack. Circumventing these problems required modifying
some of the library functions and the startup code that is automatically linked in the final
binary image to be burned into the EPROM. Moreover, we decided to adopt some unor-
thodox programming practices, like keeping all of the program variables globally visible
and returning values from the various subroutines by directly modifying global variables.
These practices are against the accepted style rules for writing in C and often are taken as
examples of bad programming on bigger machines, but on a microcontroller they have the

advantage of minimizing the usage of the stack and therefore become highly desirable.

The finished code is designed to communicate with the user via an RS-232 serial asyn-
chronous interface at 9600 baud, so that any personal computer can be used as a terminal.
To provide maximum flexibility several menus guide the user through the steps necessary
to input the various simulation parameters and to select the desired kind of simulation.

The code is written to be easily extendable to handle future AR-LSMDs with different

inter-beam spacing and, possibly, with more than two laser beams, even if such support

27

will also require the addition of other ETS boxes and the relative control logic on the Con—

trol Unit

3.5: Software state machine

The core of the ETS firing routines implements a simple state machine. Any device that
can implement a similar state machine can be used to control the ETS boxes, so that sev-
eral different configurations of the simulator are possible to respond to different testing
needs.

This state machine, illustrated in the diagram of Figure 3.7, is composed of four main
states.

The initial state is the Idle state, where the simulator is waiting for the command to pro-
duce a speed. All of the user interaction is currently done in the Idle state, so that once the
ETS firing sequence is started there will be no interruptions that could false a measure-
ment.

The first stage of the generation of a target is the Synch state, where the code waits to syn-
chronize with a rollover of the 68HC11 free-running counter. This is done so that all tim-
ing parameters for the target pulses are always measured relative to a known reference.
The Synch state is entered upon a specific user directive.

The next stage of the state machine is the Entry state. This state is entered when the hard-
ware flags a successfull synchronization of the two timing channels used with the refer-
ence counter. In this state the code schedules the transitions corresponding to the leading
edges of the Start and Stop pulses that control the ETS. The transition between this state
and the next is again controlled by the timing hardware: once the last leading edge has
occurred the Exit state is entered.

The Exit state schedules the two falling edges of the ETS control signals. Once the last

28

edge transition has occurred there are two possibilities. If the current target was the last of
a given simulation the state machine returns to the Idle state. If there are more targets to be
simulated, the next state will again be the Synch state. The controller will remain in the
Synch state until the inter-target time has expired, after which it will proceed to generate a

new target.

Fig. 3.7: Control state machine.

29

3.6: Implementation details

To validate the ETS concept and to perform the tests that we needed we built a working
prototype of our speed simulator. At the moment, many of the details of the hardware and
software that compose the MSU Across the Road Laser Speed Simulator are proprietary
design of the Michigan State University Instrumentation Design and Testing Laboratory,
and they can be found in the unpublished technical report: ‘AR Laser Speed Simulator
Design’ [ref. 2]

4: Testing of an across-the-road LSMD

The device that was loaned to us from an European manufacturer is the first across—the-
road LSMD that has been submitted for testing to the Instrumentation Design and Test
Laboratory at MSU.

Since the Fall semester of 1992 we have had several opportunities to characterize this
device both in the field and in the laboratory, first by using the mechanical simulator pro-
vided by its manufacturer, and, since October 1993, by using the simulator that we devel-
oped independently.

The focus of this chapter will be mainly on the laboratory tests that we conducted and that

allowed us to gain considerable insight into the operation of this device.

4.1: The device under test

The AR-LSMD that we tested is a two beam device. It is composed of a laser emitter
assembly and a control unit. The laser emitter assembly is normally mounted on a tripod
and placed on the side of the road where measurements are to be taken. The tripod head is
provided with bubble levels so that the operator can verify that the laser emitter assembly
is properly positioned and that there are no geometrical distortions to the measurement
range like the ones we discussed in chapter two of this document. The device itself has no
automatic cutoff to prevent from taking readings when not properly set up.

The control unit connects to the laser emitter assembly with a multipolar cable that carries
both power and data signals between the two units. The device functionality is fully con-
trolled from this unit, that can be hand held or installed inside a patrol vehicle. The various
options available are chosen from an alphanumeric keypad on the front panel of the con-

trol unit, and the speed readout appears on a LCD display and can optionally be sent to a

30

31

small printer to obtain a record of each measurement, including a time stamp and informa-
tion on the location where the measurement was taken.

Several optional devices can be connected to this Ar-LSMD, including a 35 millimeters
SLR camera equipped with a custom data back panel that can be used to automatically
record on film each speed violation.

In our tests we concentrated on the study of the main units, and while we had a chance to
test some of the optional accessories during informal field trials none of the conclusions of

our tests apply to any optional accessory or are in any way influenced by them.

4.2: Testing procedures

In designing the series of tests to be performed on the actual Ar-LSMD we followed the

guidelines established by the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force in the Interim

Standard and Specifications for the procurement of Laser Speed Measurement Devices.

The goal of our tests was to ascertain the compliance of this AR-LSMD to the standards

adopted by the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force so that it could be inserted in the

Michigan Qualified Products List upon passing our examination.

According to these guidelines, each LSMD that will be used in Michigan has to satisfy or

exceed, among others, the following criteria: [ref. 3]

1) The LSMD should be able to measure the speed of any target traveling at any
speed ranging from 5 m.p.h. to 195 m.p.h. with a resolution of 1 m.p.h.

2) For each reading the maximum allowable error is plus or minus one mile per hour,
and the cumulative average of the readings corresponding to the same target speed
should be between minus one to plus zero miles per hour from the actual speed.
This requirement indicates that if any bias exists in the measuring device it should

be in favor of the speeding violator.

32

3) The LSMD should be able to fulfill the two above requirements while being oper-
ated at temperatures ranging from 30 degrees Celsius below zero to 60 degrees
Celsius above zero and at power supply levels ranging from 10.8 Volts to 16.3
Volts.

4) The LSMD should not be affected by various kind of electromagnetic interference
such as the ones that could be generated by the electrical devices mounted in a
police patrol car.

In order to test for compliance to the above criteria we decided to collect one hundred

readings at each of the following simulated speeds: 5 m.p.h., 25 m.p.h., 45 m.p.h., 65

m.p.h., 85 m.p.h., 105 m.p.h., 125 m.p.h., 145 m.p.h., 165 m.p.h., 180 m.p.h. and 195

m.p.h. The log of these experiments is enclosed in the first part of Appendix A.

Successful completion of these tests, that were conducted at room temperature and at

nominal power supply levels, would have allowed us to proceed to a second testing phase

where we would have stressed the environmental limits of the device under test.

4.3: Room temperature test findings

The device under test did not successfully pass the first phase of our tests. While it showed
excellent consistency of results and accuracy at simulated speeds between 5 and 65 miles
per hour, high speed tests show a large percentage of erroneous readings, and the deviation
from the actual speed appears to increase as a function of the speed being simulated.
While at low speed the indications of the measurement apparatus matched very closely the
simulator output, with cumulative errors from zero miles per hour to small negative frac-
tions of one mile per hour, at speeds of 85 miles per hour or above up to 50% of the read-
ings presented an unacceptable positive error. Figure 4.1 shows the margins of error

detected in the device under test as a function of simulated speed. The abscissa in this fig-

33

 

 

 

 

l l l l T l l l l l
3
— e.
0
.‘
g
I—— —
.‘\_
Q‘
35
0
l—- —4
e
0
\P
i l l l l i l l l l
o O O O

O o O O O O O
N O 00 to v N O °° ’0 '3' N
N N H H H H H

Readings range [m.p.h.]

Fig. 4.1: Observed errors in the measurements of the device under test

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

4O

20

Simulated speed [m.p.h.]

34

ure is the simulated speed in miles per hour, and for each measurement point an error bar
indicates the variability of the measured speed.

To explain these errors we had to take a close look at the details of the operation of the Ar-
LSMD with which he were working, and especially at the modulation scheme employed
by the laser emission of this apparatus.

As we can see from figures 3.2 and 3.3, as well as from the detail shown in figure 4.2, the
two laser beams in this AR-LSMD are modulated in a pulse train with a period of 142
microseconds; each beam is on for approximately 10 microseconds and off for approxi-
mately 132 microseconds. Moreover only one beam is on at any given time: this is done so
that the detection circuits can discriminate the reflections coming from the Start beam
from those of the Stop beam. The time between a Start pulse and the corresponding Stop
pulse is approximately 22 us.

This modulation scheme holds the key to the explanation of the errors in the readings of
this AR-LSMD. There are two sources of error in this scheme: one is the possibility of
skipping a Start pulse if a target enters the laser range in the 22 microseconds between the
firing of the Start laser and the firing of the Stop laser. The other is the coarse quantization
of the time measurements taken by the AR-LSMD under test, due to the large interval
between successive laser pulse in the same beam.

The errors that we observed during our experimentation result from a combination of the
two above error sources and without setting up tests specifically designed to isolate one
from the other it is difficult to tell for any given speed what percentage of the error is due
to which error mode.

The probability of skipping a pulse in the measurement of the speed of a target is indepen-
dent from the speed of the target itself. Assuming, as reasonable, that the arrival time of a

target into the measurement range is uniformly distributed and there is no relationship

 

TE.

.55
mam
3.8
me:
who
.80

T

 

 

 

 

-b—
-L
4.-

«r-
fib-
db

 

'0-
«I-
4r-
"P'
«r-
Hi-
H»-
HI—
+
‘1.
.l»
H}-
"P
‘l‘
-0—

 

 

 

 

35

HHuHmumH

uvm\OH\mo
NHm
O

m5 OH

> ON.mr
Dd

> N

HHHHmNmH
am\mfl\mo
mam

o
m: OH

>8 ONm
Dd

>N

THE

.38
aim
an
my:
mac
#8

4L

 

l
T

l 1
T T

-,

 

 

db
-ii-
‘1’-
«l-
+-
«r—
4&-

 

 

 

 

 

d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

qr-
‘-

 

1i-
i

d!-
.1-

.4-
db
-0—
it
-l-

 

Fig. 4.2: detail of the laser modulation of the AR-LSMD under test

 

 

 

 

36

between this arrival time and the modulation of the laser beams the probability that a tar-

get will enter the range in the dead time between can be easily computed as

22

mxlOO

Perrl =

or approximately 15%.

This error does not appear in the measurement taken at the lower speeds because of the
fact that the AR-LSMD is designed to round its measurement to the lower integer mile per
hour, so that as long as 142 us corresponds to less than one mile per hour the device will
automatically correct the reading.

As shown in figure 4.3, the incremental speed error corresponding to the time quantization
chosen by designers of this device grows more than linearly with speed; it becomes
greater than one mile per hour when the target speed is greater than approximately 80
m.p.h. and at the higher end of our measurement range, 195 m.p.h., it reaches the totally
unacceptable level of 6.23 m.p.h. It is interesting to notice that errors of the same nature
were observed in a previous generation of speed measurement devices, known as VAS-
CAR-plus and based on the same time-distance model used in an Ar-LSMD. [ref. 4]
When the target speed increases to the point at which a difference of 142 us over a dis-
tance of 400 millimeters corresponds to a variation in speed of more than one mile per
hour, it becomes impossible for the device to accurately resolve the target’s speed within
the desired accuracy.

At this point the error introduced by the possibility of skipping a pulse is also compounded
to the degradation of the measurement resolution, and the sum of those two errors is what
we observed in our measurements.

To confirm the fact that the quantization error becomes dominant at high speed we col-

37

 

 

 

 

 

Quantization error [m.p.h.]

Fig. 4.3: Quantization error versus target speed in the device under test

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

4O

20

Nominal speed [m.p.h]

38

lected an additional series of measurements where we intentionally biased the output of
the simulator up by 0.5 miles per hour from our previous nominal speeds. This second set
of tests, included in the second part of appendix A, gave results very similar to the first
batch, thus confirming that the device that we tested does round its measurement to the
lower integer value when it is able to discern the speed of the target within a mile per hour.
At high speed this second batch of measurements proved that the quantization errors over-
power the bias that we introduced. As expected the bias increased the number of positive
errors at the speed of 85 miles per hour, where the quantization error, while significant, is
still of the same magnitude as the bias that we applied.

There a few subtle aspects of the operation of this AR-LSMD that we could not ascertain
from the tests we conducted. In particular, we need more information to determine how
good the error discrimination of this device is in the case in which the reading taken on a
target entering the laser range differs from the reading taken when the same target leaves
the range. It is interesting in this regard to notice that even when errors in the measure-
ments were introduced by the two effects described above, the AR-LSMD never identified

a reading as invalid.

5: Project review

This chapter reviews the performance of the Simulator that was developed as part of this
thesis and outline what future improvements could be done to the simulator itself.

Also, we review the performance of the AR-LSMD that we were allowed to test as part of
this project and we suggest some changes in the design of this device that could help
improve its performance to the level requested by the Michigan Speed Measurement Task

Force guidelines.

5.1: Contributions

We feel that the major contribution of this research to the field of measurement and testing
devices is the concept on which the ETS is based. Previous attempts to build a target sim-
ulator for AR-LSMDs were based on reflecting back, through mechanical or optoelec-
tronic means, the signal generated by the device under test.

By recreating an optical signal that is indistinguishable from the laser emission of the
device under test the ETS eliminates the alignment problems that made all previous
attempts only partly successful. Also, the ETS concept allows to control the return signals
very effectively, and it allows to simulate anomalous targets or combination of targets like
the ones that could be encountered during field use. This capability, not present in the
mechanical simulators, allows the testing laboratory to characterize the behavior of an
AR-LSMD in any possible hypothetical situation. This last capability is very important
when the results of certification tests are used to answer legal challenges that could be

brought to the operation of a particular device.

39

40

5.2: AR-LSMD simulator performance
With this project, we were able to validate the concept that is at the base of the Electronic

Target Simulator and we were able to show that such a concept can be successfully applied
to test across the road laser speed measurement devices.

The current ETS was designed to interface to the particular AR-LSMD that we had to
work with and, while every reasonable attempt was made to keep the design of the ETS
independent from a specific model and vendor of AR-LSMDs, it might lack the flexibility
to be able to interface with any arbitrary AR-LSMD that could be introduced into the mar-
ket, especially because the wavelength. of the return signals is currently fixed and future
devices could employ different kinds of infrared lasers.

In such a situation the only modification that should be required to the current ETS is the
replacement of the infrared emitter and detectors. The ETS was designed so that it would
be very easy to change the infrared emitters; the current circuit can be employed with
either LED or laser emitters by simply replacing a limiting resistor. The current detector
should be usable with a large spectrum of infrared lasers by simply realigning the current
circuit. If a new detector was to be used the demodulator circuit might have to be slightly
redesigned.The current ETS is designed to be completely independent from the control
logic. This will allow future simulators to be built around different control platforms other
than the Motorola 68HC11 microcontroller, as long as the device chosen to control the
ETS is able to provide timing signal at standard TTL or CMOS logic levels.

While we believe that the current performance of the simulator is more than acceptable,
this quantization error could be significantly reduced, if needed, by redesigning the soft-
ware that operates the Control Unit and by substituting the current microcontroller with a

device rated for a higher clock rate.

41

 

 

 

 

 

Quantization error [m.p.h.]

Fig. 5.1: Quantization errors of the MSU AR-LSMD speed simulator

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

6O

4O

20

Nominal speed [m.p.h]

42

With the present control logic the time resolution of the simulated target pulses is 8 us. In
the case of the AR-LSMD that we tested this corresponds to a maximum uncertainty of
less than 0.33 miles per hour in the speed being simulated when operating at the upper
edge of the Michigan guidelines, that are among the most stringent in the United States.
Figure 5.1 shows the error introduced by the time quantization of our simulator as a func-
tion of speed and referred to a beam separation of 400 millimeters.

Another possible change to the Simulator is the addition of a third ETS channel to allow
the operation in conjunction with a 3 beam AR-LSMD. This possibility was foreseen in
the design of the Control Unit, so that such modification will simply require a third ETS
box and minimal and straightforward modifications to the assembly firing routines.

With this much flexibility, the ETS concept appears to be the optimal solution to the prob-
lem of simulating a target for an AR-LSMD both for the precision that it allows and for
the low cost of this solution, especially when compared with possible alternatives.

For these reasons, we hope that the ETS will find large acceptance among laboratories and

institutions involved in the testing and certification of laser speed measurement devices.

5.3: Performance of the AR-LSMD under test

From our findings it is clear that the current version of this AR-LSMD has design limita-
tions that do not make it fit for use in Michigan under the currently established guidelines.
This notwithstanding, we believe that the concept of across-the—road Laser Speed Mea-
surement is viable and, if properly implemented, can provide very accurate readings.

The main problem with the current device is the pulse repetition rate used in the laser
modulation. From our tests it appears that to resolve speed within one mile per hour at 195
m.p.h. the pulse rate has to be increased at least five times, bringing the period of the mod-

ulation signal down to 24 us or less. If this is not possible due to the duty cycle require-

43

ments of the laser emitters an alternative would be to increase the measurement base of the
Ar-LSMD: a wider beam spacing would allow a slower pulse rate.

Once a combination of beam spacing and pulse rate is chosen such that the resolution of
the device is brought up to compliance with the current Michigan guidelines, the error
introduced by skipping a pulse needs to be addressed.

With the current modulation scheme there will always be a chance to skip a pulse due to a
target entering the measurement range immediately after the falling edge of a start pulse:
to minimize this chance the dead time between the sampling of the start beam and the
sampling of the stop beam should be reduce as much as possible, so that the average
cumulative error will fall into the requirements.

Finally, the present design lacks of a practical way to detect the geometrical distortions of
the measurement range that we discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. The present device is
supplied with a ruler that has two phosphorescent detectors separated by 0.4 meters to be
used to check the beam parallelism This device, while functional, is very impractical to
use in full daylight, when the luminescence produced by the two infrared laser is too faint
to be distinguished. We believe that such a device could be vastly improved by using two
active infrared detectors at the ends of the beam gauge. A pair of visible LEDs will then
indicate if both beams are illuminating the detectors at the same time.

The device that we tested has a bubble level in the base of its tripod that can be used to
verify that the unit is set up without any vertical tilt, but no automatic cutoff to invalidate a
measurement if the unit is actually tilted. This could be a potential weakness of this LSMD
that could be used to legally challenge the readings taken by the Autovelox. While such
cutoff would not affect the accuracy of the unit when properly employed, it would make
the Autovelox simpler to use in the field and possibly easier to defend from challenges.

We believe that the problems that were detected in the current version of the AR-LSMD

44

that we evaluated were not detectable with the testing apparatus being used by the manu-
facturer, and the data that we collected using the Electronic Target Simulator will be valu-

able to correct the design of this device.

45

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 / 1184 Date: 2/ 17/94

Simulated Speed: 5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 0 35 0 69 0
2 O 36 0 70 0
3 O 37 0 71 O
4 O 38 0 72 O
5 O 39 0 73 O
6 0 4O 0 74 0
7 O 41 0 75 0
8 0 42 0 76 0
9 O 43 0 77 O
10 O 44 O 78 0
11 0 45 O 79 O
12 O 46 0 80 0
13 0 47 0 81 0
14 0 48 0 82 0
15 0 49 0 83 O
16 O 50 0 84 0
17 O 51 0 85 O
18 O 52 0 86 O
19 0 53 O 87 0
20 0 , 54 O 88 0
21 0 55 0 89 0
22 O 56 0 9O 0
23 O 57 O 91 O
24 0 58 0 92 0
25 O 59 O 93 O
26 O 60 0 94 0
27 0 61 0 95 0
28 0 62 0 96 0
29 0 63 O 97 0
3O 0 64 O 98 O
31 0 65 0 99 0
32 O 66 O 100 0
33 0 67 0 101 0
34 O 68 O

 

46

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2 / 17/ 94

Simulated Speed: 25 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 OF)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 O 35 0 69 0
2 0 36 O 70 0
3 O 37 O 71 0
4 0 38 O 72 0
5 0 39 O 73 0
6 0 40 0 74 O
7 O 41 0 75 0
8 0 42 O 76 0
9 O 43 0 77 0
10 0 44 0 78 0
11 O 45 O 79 0
12 0 46 0 80 0
13 0 47 0 81 O
14 0 48 0 82 0
15 0 49 O 83 0
16 0 50 O 84 O
17 0 51 0 85 0
18 O 52 0 86 0
19 O 53 0 87 0
20 O 54 O 88 0
21 O 55 O 89 0
22 O 56 O 90 0
23 0 57 O 91 O
24 0 58 0 92 O
25 0 59 O 93 0
26 0 60 0 94 0
27 0 61 O 95 0
28 O 62 0 96 0
29 O 63 0 97 O
30 0 64 0 98 0
31 0 65 0 99 0
32 O 66 0 100 O
33 O 67 O 101 O
34 0 68 O

 

47

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2 / 17/ 94

Simulated Speed: 4 5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 oC (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 0 35 O 69 0
2 O 36 O 70 O
3 O 37 O 71 O
4 O 38 0 72 O
5 0 39 0 73 O
6 O 40 O 74 0
7 O 41 O 75 O
8 O 42 0 76 0
9 O 43 0 77 0
10 -1 44 O 78 0
11 -1 45 0 79 0
12 0 46 0 80 O
13 O 47 O 81 -1
14 O ' 48 0 82 -1
15 O 49 -1 83 0
16 O 50 0 84 0
l7 0 51 O 85 O
18 -1 52 O 86 0
19 -1 53 0 87 0
20 0 54 O 88 O
21 O 55 O 89 O
22 0 56 0 90 0
23 0 57 O 91 0
24 0 58 O 92 -1
25 0 59 O 93 -1
26 0 60 5 94 0
27 0 61 -1 95 -1
28 O 62 0 96 0
29 O 63 0 97 0
3O 0 64 O 98 0
31 O 65 O 99 O
32 0 66 O 100 O
33 0 67 0 101 O
34 O 68 0

 

48

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2 / 17/ 94

Simulated Speed: 65 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 O 35 0 69 0
2 0 36 0 70 0
3 0 37 O 71 0
4 0 38 0 72 0
5 O 39 0 73 O
6 0 40 O 74 0
7 0 41 O 75 0
8 0 42 O 76 0
9 0 43 O 77 0
10 O 44 0 78 0
11 O 45 0 79 O
12 0 46 O 80 O
13 0 47 0 81 0
14 O 48 0 82 0
15 0 49 O 83 0
16 O 50 O 84 0
17 0 51 0 85 0
18 0 52 0 86 O
19 O 53 0 87 0
20 O 54 0 88 0
21 O 55 0 89 O
22 0 56 O 90 O
23 O 57 0 91 0
24 0 58 0 92 0
25 O 59 O 93 O
26 O 60 0 94 0
27 O 61 O 95 0
28 0 62 O 96 O
29 0 63 0 97 0
30 0 64 0 98 O
31 O 65 0 99 O
32 O 66 0 100 O
33 O 67 0 101 0
34 O 68 0

 

49

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial N 0.: D1 /1184 Date:2/ 18/94

Simulated Speed: 85 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 O 35 0 69 0
2 0 36 0 70 0
3 +1 37 0 71 O
4 +1 38 O 72 O
5 0 39 O 73 O
6 0 40 0 74 O
7 0 41 O 75 O
8 0 42 0 76 0
9 0 43 +1 77 +1
10 0 44 O 78 +1
11 +1 45 O 79 +1
12 +1 46 0 80 +1
13 O 47 O 81 0
14 O 48 0 82 O
15 0 49 0 83 O
16 0 50 +1 84 O
17 +1 51 +1 85 O
18 O 52 0 86 +1
19 +1 53 O 87 O
20 0 54 +1 88 0
21 O 55 O 89 O
22 0 56 0 9O 0
23 0 57 0 91 +1
24 O 58 +1 92 O
25 0 59 +1 93 O
26 O 60 0 94 0
27 +1 61 0 95 0
28 0 62 O 96 0
29 +1 63 O 97 +1
30 0 64 0 98 O
31 +1 65 0 99 0
32 0 66 O 100 0
33 O 67 0 101 0
34 +1 68 0

 

50

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2 / 18 / 94

Simulated Speed: 105 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 0 35 O 69 O
2 0 36 0 70 0
3 0 37 O 71 0
4 0 38 0 72 0
5 O 39 0 73 0
6 0 40 O 74 0
7 +2 41 +2 75 O
8 O 42 0 76 O
9 0 43 O 77 0
10 0 44 0 78 0
11 0 45 0 79 0
12 0 46 0 80 O
13 0 47 O 81 O
14 +2 48 0 82 0
15 0 49 +2 83 +2
16 O 50 O 84 0
17 0 51 0 85 0
18 O 52 0 86 0
19 0 53 0 87 0
20 0 54 +2 88 0
21 0 55 0 89 O
22 O ‘ 56 0 9O 0
23 O 57 0 91 O
24 0 58 O 92 O
25 O 59 0 93 0
26 O 60 0 94 O
27 0 61 +2 95 O
28 0 62 0 96 0
29 O 63 O 97 O
30 0 64 0 98 O
31 0 65 O 99 0
32 O 66 0 100 O
33 +2 67 +2 101 +2
34 0 68 0

 

51

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1184 Date:2/ 18 / 94

Simulated Speed: 125 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 -1 35 0 69 -1
2 O 36 0 70 +2
3 -1 37 O 71 -1
4 0 38 -1 72 0
5 -1 39 -1 73 O
6 O 40 -1 74 O
7 O 41 -1 75 -1
8 +2 42 O 76 0
9 O 43 +2 77 0
10 -1 44 -1 78 0
11 O 45 -1 79 0
12 +2 46 +2 80 +2
13 O 47 O 81 0
14 -1 48 -1 82 +2
15 O 49 -1 83 O
16 0 50 -1 84 -1
17 O 51 +2 85 -1
18 -1 52 0 86 -1
19 -1 53 -1 87 -1
20 +2 54 +2 88 -1
21 -1 55 -1 89 0
22 -1 56 -1 90 O
23 -1 ‘ 57 -1 91 -1
24 O 58 -1 92 0
25 O 59 +2 93 O
26 +2 60 0 94 +2
27 O 61 -1 95 -1
28 -1 62 -1 96 -1
29 0 63 -1 97 -1
30 0 64 O 98 +2
31 -1 65 -1 99 +2
32 O 66 -1 100 0
33 -1 67 -1 101 0

34 +2 68 -1

 

52

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2/ 18 / 94

Simulated Speed: 145 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 -1 35 +2 69 +2
2 -1 36 +2 70 -1
3 -1 37 +2 71 +2
4 -1 38 -1 72 -1
5 +2 39 +2 73 +2
6 -1 40 +2 74 -1
7 +2 41 +2 75 +2
8 +2 42 -1 76 +2
9 -1 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 +2 78 +2
11 +2 45 -1 79 -1
12 +2 46 +2 80 -1
13 -1 47 +2 81 -1
14 -1 48 +2 82 +2
15 +2 49 +2 83 +2
16 -1 50 -1 84 +2
17 +2 51 +2 85 -1
18 -1 52 -1 86 +2
19 -1 53 -1 87 -1
20 -1 54 +2 88 -1
21 +2 55 -1 89 +2
22 +2 56 +2 90 +2
23 +2 57 -1 91 -1
24 -1 ‘ 58 -1 92 -1
25 +2 59 +2 93 -1
26 +2 60 +2 94 -1
27 +2 61 +2 95 +2
28 -1 62 +2 96 +2
29 +2 63 -1 97 +2
30 -1 64 +2 98 -1
31 +2 65 +2 99 +2
32 +2 66 -1 100 -1
33 -1 67 -1 101 +2

34 +2 68 -1

 

53

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2 / 21 / 94

Simulated Speed: 180 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 +3 35 +3 69 -1
2 -3 36 -1 7O -1
3 -1 37 +3 71 -1
4 -1 38 +3 72 -1
5 -1 39 +3 73 -3
6 -1 40 +3 74 -1
7 -3 41 -1 75 -1
8 -1 42 -3 76 -1
9 -1 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 -1 78 -1
11 -1 45 -1 79 +3
12 -3 46 -1 80 +3
13 -1 47 +3 81 -1
14 +3 48 +3 82 +3
15 -1 49 -1 83 -1
16 -1 l 50 -1 84 -1
17 -1 l 51 -1 85 -3
18 +3 ‘ 52 +3 86 -1
19 -1 l 53 -1 87 -1
20 -1 54 +3 88 -1
21 -1 55 -1 89 -1
22 -1 56 -1 90 -3
23 +3 57 -3 91 +3
24 +3 58 -1 92 +3
25 -1 59 +3 93 -1
26 -1 60 -1 94 -1
27 -1 61 +3 95 -3
28 +3 62 -1 96 -1
29 +3 63 -1 97 +3
30 +3 64 -1 98 -1
31 -1 65 -1 99 -1
32 -1 66 +3 100 +3
33 -1 67 -1 101 -1
68

 

54

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date:2/ 21 / 94

Simulated Speed: 195 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 -1 35 -l 69 -1
2 -1 36 +4 70 +4
3 +6 37 -1 71 +6
4 -1 38 -2 72 -1
5 -3 39 -1 73 +6
6 -1 40 -1 74 -2
7 -1 41 +6 75 -1
8 -1 42 -1 76 -1
9 +6 43 -2 77 -1
10 -1 44 -1 78 -1
11 -1 45 -1 79 -1
12 -1 46 -1 80 -1
13 -1 47 -1 81 +4
14 +4 48 -1 82 -1
15 -1 49 -1 83 -2
16 +4 50 -1 84 -1
17 -1 51 +6 85 -1
18 +6 52 -1 86 -1
19 -1 53 -2 87 -1
20 -1 ‘ 54 -1 88 -1
21 -1 l 55 -1 89 -1
22 -1 . 56 -1 90 -1
23 -1 57 -1 91 -1
24 -1 58 -2 92 -1
25 +6 59 -1 93 -1
26 -3 60 -1 94 -1
27 -1 61 -1 95 -1
28 -1 62 -2 96 -1
29 -1 63 -1 97 -1
30 -1 64 -1 98 -1
31 +4 65 -1 99 -2
32 -1 66 -1 100 -2
33 -1 67 -1 101 -1
34 -1 68 -1

 

55

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 2 / 27 / 94

Simulated Speed: 5.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 0 35 0 69 0
2 0 36 O 70 0
3 0 37 0 71 O
4 O 38 O 72 0
5 O 39 0 73 O
6 O 40 O 74 O
7 O 41 O 75 0
8 O 42 O 76 O
9 0 43 O 77 O
10 0 44 O 78 0
11 O 45 0 79 0
12 O 46 0 80 0
13 0 47 O 81 O
14 O 48 O 82 0
15 0 49 O 83 0
16 O 50 0 84 0
17 0 51 O 85 O
18 O 52 O 86 0
19 O 53 0 87 0
20 0 54 O 88 0
21 O 55 0 89 O
22 O 56 O 90 O
23 0 57 0 91 0
24 0 58 0 92 0
25 O 59 0 93 O
26 0 60 O 94 0
27 O 61 0 95 0
28 0 62 O 96 O
29 0 63 0 97 0
30 0 64 O 98 0
31 0 65 0 99 0
32 0 66 0 100 O
33 0 67 O 101 O
34 0 68 0

 

56

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 2 / 27 / 94

Simulated Speed: 25.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 O 35 O 69 0
2 0 36 0 70 O
3 O 37 O 71 O
4 O 38 O 72 0
5 0 39 O 73 O
6 O 40 O 74 0
7 O 41 O 75 O
8 O 42 0 76 0
9 0 43 0 77 0
10 O 44 0 78 0
11 0 45 O 79 0
12 0 46 0 8O 0
13 O 47 O 81 0
14 0 48 0 82 0
15 O 49 O 83 O
16 O 50 0 84 0
17 0 51 0 85 O
18 O 52 0 86 0
19 0 53 0 87 O
20 0 54 0 88 0
21 0 55 0 89 O
22 O 56 0 90 O
23 O 57 O 91 0
24 0 58 0 92 0
25 0 59 O 93 0
26 0 60 O 94 0
27 0 61 0 95 O
28 O 62 O 96 0
29 O 63 O 97 O
30 0 64 O 98 O
31 0 65 0 99 0
32 0 66 0 100 0
33 0 67 0 101 O
34 0 68 O

 

V
|

57

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial N 0.: D1 / 1184 Date: 2/ 27/ 94

Simulated Speed: 45.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 0 35 0 69 0
2 0 36 0 7O 0
3 O 37 0 71 O
4 0 38 O 72 O
5 O 39 0 73 0
6 O 40 0 74 O
7 O 41 0 75 0
8 O 42 O 76 0
9 0 43 O 77 O
10 O 44 0 78 O
11 0 45 0 79 O
12 0 46 O 80 O
13 0 47 O 81 0
14 0 48 0 82 O
15 0 49 0 83 O
16 0 50 0 84 O
17 0 51 0 85 0
18 O 52 0 86 O
19 O 53 0 87 0
20 O 54 O 88 0
21 0 55 O 89 O
22 0 56 0 90 0
23 0 57 O 91 0
24 0 58 0 92 O
25 0 59 0 93 0
26 0 60 0 94 O
27 O 61 0 95 0
28 0 62 O 96 O
29 0 63 O 97 0
3O 0 64 O 98 O
31 0 65 0 99 O
32 0 66 0 100 O
33 O 67 0 101 0
34 0 68 0

 

58

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 2 / 27 / 94

Simulated Speed: 65.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
190. (anJL) hkx (anlL) 190. (anJL)
1 0 35 0 69 0
2 O 36 0 7O 0
3 O 37 O 71 0
4 O 38 0 72 0
5 0 39 O 73 O
6 0 4O 0 74 0
7 0 41 O 75 O
8 O 42 O 76 O
9 O 43 0 77 O
10 0 44 0 78 O
11 O 45 O 79 O
12 O 46 0 80 O
13 O 47 0 81 0
14 O 48 O 82 0
15 0 49 0 83 0
16 0 50 0 84 O
17 O 51 O 85 0
18 O 52 O 86 O
19 0 53 O 87 0
20 0 54 O 88 0
21 0 55 O 89 0
22 O 56 0 90 O
23 O 57 O 91 0
24 O 58 O 92 0
25 O 59 0 93 0
26 O 60 0 94 O
27 O 61 O 95 0
28 0 62 O 96 O
29 0 63 0 97 O
30 0 64 +1 98 O
31 O 65 O 99 0
32 O 66 O 100 O
33 0 67 O 101 O
34 O 68 0

 

V
|

59

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date: 2 / 27/ 94

Simulated Speed: 85.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
- 1 +1 35 0 69 +1
2 +1 36 +1 70 +1
3 +1 37 O 71 +1
4 +1 38 +1 72 +1
5 0 39 +1 73 O
6 +1 40 +1 74 +1
7 O 41 +1 75 O
8 O 42 +1 76 O
9 O 43 O 77 +1
10 +1 44 0 78 +1
11 +1 45 O 79 O
12 +1 46 O 80 O
13 0 47 0 81 O
14 0 48 +1 82 0
15 0 49 +1 83 O
16 +1 50 +1 84 0
17 +1 51 +1 85 0
18 +1 52 +1 86 +1
19 +1 53 0 87 O
20 +1 54 0 88 0
21 O 55 O 89 0
22 0 56 +1 90 +1
23 0 57 +1 91 +1
24 O 58 O 92 +1
25 O 59 +1 93 +1
26 O 60 O 94 +1
27 0 61 O 95 0
28 0 62 +1 96 +1
29 +1 63 +1 97 +1
30 0 64 +1 98 +1
31 0 65 +1 99 +1
32 +1 66 0 100 +1
33 0 67 +1 101 +1
34 0 68 +1

 

 

6O

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 2 / 27/ 94

Simulated Speed: 105.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 +2 35 +2 69 +2
2 0 36 0 7O 0
3 0 37 O 71 +2
4 +2 38 0 72 0
5 0 39 0 73 0
6 0 40 0 74 0
7 +2 41 0 75 +2
8 O 42 0 76 0
9 +2 43 +2 77 0
10 0 44 +2 78 0
11 +2 45 +2 79 +2
12 O 46 +2 80 +2
13 0 47 0 81 0
14 0 48 O 82 0
15 O 49 0 83 +2
16 +2 50 +2 84 0
17 0 51 O 85 0
18 +2 52 O 86 O
19 O 53 +2 87 +2
20 +2 54 +2 88 +2
21 O 55 O 89 0
22 0 56 +2 90 +2
23 O 57 0 91 O
24 0 58 0 92 0
25 +2 59 O 93 +2
26 0 60 +2 94 +2
27 0 61 0 95 0
28 +2 62 0 96 0
29 0 63 +2 97 +2
30 0 64 O 98 0
31 0 65 O 99 O
32 +2 66 0 100 0
33 0 67 +2 101 0
34 0 68 0

 

61

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1184 Date: 2 / 27/ 94

Simulated Speed: 125.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 oF)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 +2 35 O 69 +2
2 +2 36 +2 70 -1
3 O 37 0 71 0
4 -1 38 0 72 -1
5 -1 39 -1 73 +2
6 +2 40 +2 74 -1
7 O 41 O 75 O
8 -1 42 +2 76 -1
9 +2 43 O 77 +2
10 +2 44 -1 78 -1
11 +2 45 +2 79 +2
12 +2 46 O 80 +2
13 O 47 O 81 0
14 O 48 -1 82 +2
15 O 49 -1 83 +2
16 0 50 +2 84 +2
17 -1 51 O 85 0
18 0 52 -1 86 -1
19 +2 53 0 87 0
20 0 54 +2 88 0
21 0 55 0 89 O
22 O 56 +2 90 -1
23 +2 57 -1 91 +2
24 -1 58 +2 92 0
25 0 59 +2 93 -1
26 -1 60 +2 94 +2
27 -1 61 +2 95 -1
28 -1 62 0 96 +2
29 -1 63 +2 97 0
30 +2 64 +2 98 O
31 O 65 +2 99 +2
32 -1 66 0 100 O
33 +2 67 0 101 +2
34 -1 68 0

 

62

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 3/ 5 / 94

Simulated Speed: 145.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 +2 35 +2 69 +2
2 -1 36 -1 70 -1
3 -1 37 -1 71 -1
4 -1 38 -1 72 -1
5 +2 39 -1 73 +2
6 +2 40 +2 74 +2
7 +2 41 +2 75 +2
8 +2 42 -1 76 +2
9 +2 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 -1 78 -1
11 +2 45 +2 79 -1
12 +2 46 +2 80 +2
13 -1 47 -1 81 -1
14 +2 48 +2 82 -1
15 -1 49 -1 83 +2
16 -1 50 +2 84 +2
17 +2 51 +2 85 +2
18 +2 52 -1 86 +2
19 -1 i 53 -1 87 -1
20 +2 54 +2 88 +2
21 +2 55 +2 89 -1
22 +2 56 +2 90 +2
23 +2 57 +2 91 +2
24 +2 58 -1 92 +2
25 -1 59 +2 93 -1
26 +2 60 -1 94 +2
27 +2 61 +2 95 +2
28 +2 62 +2 96 -1
29 -1 63 +2 97 +2
30 +2 64 -1 98 +2
31 +2 65 -1 99 -1
32 -1 66 -1 100 +2
33 +2 67 +2 101 -1
34 +2 68 +2

 

63

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 3 / 4 / 94

Simulated Speed: 165.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 0 35 0 69 O
2 0 36 0 70 0
3 0 37 0 71 O
4 0 38 0 72 0
5 O 39 0 73 O
6 0 40 O 74 0
7 O 41 +4 75 0
8 O 42 0 76 0
9 0 43 0 77 0
10 0 44 0 78 +4
11 0 45 0 79 0
12 +4 46 0 80 0
13 0 47 O 81 0
14 O 48 O 82 0
15 0 49 O 83 O
16 0 50 O 84 O
17 O 51 O 85 0
18 0 52 +4 86 O
19 O 53 0 87 +4
20 O 54 +4 88 O
21 0 55 O 89 O
22 +4 56 O 90 0
23 O 57 0 91 0
24 0 58 0 92 +4
25 0 59 0 93 0
26 O 60 O 94 0
27 O 61 +4 95 0
28 0 62 0 96 0
29 O 63 0 . 97 0
30 +4 64 +4 98 +4
31 +4 65 0 99 0
32 0 66 O 100 O
33 0 67 +4 101 0
34 O 68 0

 

64

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date: 3 / 4 / 94

Simulated Speed: 180.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 -1 35 +3 69 +3
2 +3 36 +3 70 +3
3 -1 37 +3 71 +3
4 -1 38 -1 72 +3
5 -1 39 -1 73 +3
6 +3 40 -1 74 -1

7 -1 41 -1 75 -1
8 -1 42 -1 76 +3
9 -1 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 +3 78 -1
11 -1 45 +3 79 -1
12 -1 46 +3 80 -1
13 +3 47 +3 81 +3
14 -1 48 +3 82 +3
15 -1 49 +3 83 +3
16 -1 50 -1 84 +3
17 -1 51 +3 85 +3
18 -1 52 -1 86 -1
19 +3 53 -1 87 +3
20 +3 54 +3 88 -1
21 +3 55 +3 89 -1
22 -1 56 +3 90 +3
23 +3 57 +3 91 -1
24 -1 58 -1 92 +3
25 -1 59 -1 93 +3
26 +3 60 +3 94 +3
27 -1 61 +3 95 -1
28 -1 62 +3 96 -1
29 -1 63 +3 97 -1
30 -1 64 +3 98 -1
31 -1 65 -1 99 -1
32 -1 66 -1 100 -3
33 +3 67 -1 101 -1

68

 

65

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1184 Date: 3/ 5/ 94

Simulated Speed: 195 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 -1 35 -1 69 -1
2 -1 36 -1 70 -1
3 -1 37 +6 71 -1
4 -1 38 -1 72 -1
5 -1 39 -1 73 -1
6 -1 40 +4 74 -1
7 +6 41 -1 75 -1
8 -1 42 -1 76 -1
9 +6 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 +6 78 +4
11 -3 45 -1 79 -1
12 -1 46 -1 80 -1
13 -1 47 -2 81 -1
14 -1 48 -1 82 -1
15 -1 49 -1 83 +6
16 -2 50 -1 84 -1
17 -1 51 -1 85 -1
18 -1 52 0 86 -1
19 O 53 -1 87 -1
20 -1 54 -1 88 +6
21 -1 55 —1 89 +4
22 -1 j 56 -2 90 -1
23 -1 57 -1 91 -1
24 -3 58 -1 92 -1
25 -1 59 -1 93 -1
26 -1 60 -1 94 -1
27 -1 61 -1 95 -2
28 -1 62 -1 96 -1
29 +6 63 -1 97 -1
30 -1 64 -2 98 -1
31 -1 65 -1 99 -3
32 -1 66 -1 100 -1
33 -1 67 -1 101 +6
68

 

66

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1184 Date: 3/ 5 / 94

Simulated Speed: 195.25 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 -1 35 -1 69 +6
2 -1 36 -1 70 -1
3 -1 37 +4 71 -1
4 -1 38 -1 72 +6
5 -1 39 -1 73 -1
6 -1 4O -1 74 -1
7 +6 41 -1 75 -1
8 -1 42 -2 76 -1
9 -1 43 -1 77 +6
10 -1 44 -1 78 -1
11 +6 45 -1 79 -1
12 -1 46 +4 80 -1
13 -1 47 -1 81 -2
14 -1 48 -2 82 -1
15 -1 49 -1 83 -1
16 +6 50 +6 84 O
17 -1 51 +4 85 -1
18 -1 52 +6 86 -1
19 0 53 -1 87 +6
20 +4 54 -1 88 -2
21 -2 55 -1 89 -1
22 -1 56 -1 90 -1
23 -1 57 -1 91 +6
24 -1 58 +6 92 +6
25 -1 59 -1 93 -1
26 -2 60 -1 94 -1
27 -2 61 -2 95 +4
28 -1 62 -2 96 -1
29 +4 63 -1 97 -1
30 -1 64 -3 98 -1
31 -1 65 -1 99 -2
32 -1 66 -1 100 -1
33 +6 67 -1 101 -1

 

67

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model/ Serial No.: D1 / 1184 Date: 3 / 4/ 94

Simulated Speed: 195.5 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 -1 35 -1 69 -1
2 -1 36 -1 70 -1
3 -1 37 +6 71 +6
4 -1 38 -1 72 -1
5 -1 39 -1 73 +4
6 -1 4O -1 74 -1
7 -1 41 -1 75 -1
8 -1 42 -1 76 -1
9 -1 43 -1 77 -1
10 -1 44 -1 78 -1
11 -1 45 -1 79 -1
12 -2 46 -1 8O -1
13 -1 47 -1 81 +6
14 +6 48 -1 82 +6
15 -1 49 -1 83 -1
16 -1 50 -1 84 -1
17 -1 51 -2 85 -1
18 -1 52 -1 86 -1
19 -1 53 -1 87 -1
20 -1 54 -1 88 -1
21 -1 55 -1 89 -1
22 -1 56 -1 90 -1
23 +6 57 -1 91 -1
24 +6 58 -1 92 +6
25 +4 ‘ 59 -1 93 -1
26 +6 60 -1 94 -1
27 -1 61 -1 ‘ 95 -1
28 -1 62 +6 96 -1
29 -1 63 -1 97 -1
30 -1 64 -1 98 -1
31 -1 65 -1 99 -1
32 -1 66 -1 100 -1
33 -1 67 -1 101 O

 

68

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 /1 184 Date: 3 / 5/ 94

Simulated Speed: 195.75 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 °F)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)
1 -1 35 +6 69 +6
2 -1 36 +6 70 -1
3 +6 37 -1 71 -1
4 -1 38 -1 72 -1
5 -1 39 -2 73 -2
6 -1 4O -2 74 -1
7 +6 41 -1 75 +6
8 -1 42 -1 76 -1
9 -1 43 -2 77 -1
10 +6 44 -1 78 -1
11 +6 45 -1 79 -2
12 -1 46 -1 80 -2
13 -l 47 +6 81 +6
14 -1 48 -1 82 +6
15 -2 49 -2 83 -1
16 -1 50 +6 84 -1
17 0 51 -1 85 -1
18 +6 52 -1 86 -1
19 -1 53 -1 87 -1
20 -1 54 -2 88 +6
21 -1 55 -1 89 +6
22 +6 56 -1 90 +6
23 -1 57 -1 91 -1
24 -1 58 +6 92 -1
25 -2 59 -1 93 -1
26 +6 60 -1 94 -2
27 -1 61 -1 95 -1
28 +6 62 -2 96 -1
29 -2 63 -1 97 +6
30 -1 64 -1 98 -1
31 -1 65 +6 99 -1
32 -1 66 -1 100 -1
33 -1 67 -1 101 -1
34 -1 68 O

 

69

Speed-Accuracy Testing

Laser Model / Serial No.: D1 / 1 184 Date: 3 / 5/ 94

Simulated Speed: 196 m.p.h. Operating Temperature: +23 °C (+73 oF)

 

Run Difference Run Difference Run Difference
No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.) No. (m.p.h.)

1 +5 35 +5 69 +5
2 -2 36 -2 70 -2
3 -2 37 -2 71 -2
4 -2 38 -2 72 -2
5 -2 39 +5 73 -1
6 -4 40 -3 74 -2
7 -2 41 +5 75 -2
8 -2 42 -2 76 +5
9 +5 43 -2 77 -2
10 -2 44 -2 78 -2
11 +5 45 -2 79 -2
12 -2 46 +5 80 +5
13 +5 47 -2 81 -3
14 -2 48 +5 82 -2
15 -2 49 -2 83 -2
16 +5 50 +5 84 -2
17 -2 51 -2 85 +3
18 +5 52 -2 86 -2
19 -2 53 -2 87 -2
20 +5 54 +5 88 -2
21 +5 55 -2 89 -2
22 -2 56 +5 90 +5
23 -2 57 +5 91 -2
24 -2 58 -2 92 -2
25 +5 59 +5 93 -2
26 -2 6O -2 94 +5
27 +5 61 -2 95 -2
28 -4 62 +5 96 -2
29 -2 63 -2 97 -2
30 -2 64 +5 98 +5
31 +5 65 -2 99 +5
32 +5 66 +5 100 +5
33 +5 67 -3 101 -2

34 -2 68 +5

 

70

References:

Motorola, Inc, “M68HC11 Reference Manual”, Chapter 10, section 10.4,
pp.10—27 to 10-37

Lassini, S. A. M., “AR Laser Speed Simulator Design”, unpublished report

Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force, “Interim Standard and Specifications
for the Procurement of Laser Speed Measurement Devices”, pp. 4-8

"illililli111111111“