Seems there is a problem with the LI these day's

[TSi+WRX]

^ Very good catch.

If you'll review my "dissection" of this company's presented data in my conversation with stegall1000, the Blinder rep. who frequents RD.net ( Radar detector jammer forum: View topic - Lets Come together and help one another! ), you'll see that the LI's obtained numbers, from this particular retailer's tests, are actually among the BEST of the jammers that they sell (LI, AL, and Blinder). The pertinent post which I wrote to stegall1000 is on page 2 of that thread, second one down from the top.

It's also the only jammer on their retail website that they rated as having "5 stars," whereas the others all received lesser ratings.

In my view, the tests were flawed in that they did not have a "controlled" vehicle, with optimized/controlled mounting positions for each testing scenario. There are simply too many points-of-variance.

Even then, the LI puts up commendable performance - the best out of the non-passive-protection-equipped group.

[delonix]

• It won't play on this thread because permission for embedding is turned off.

• The laser operator in these videos/tests is independent, very knowledgeable in LIDAR and does not sell any products.

• The laser operator was given one brief and one brief only - try and get a speed reading for each jammer tested. It was not "only aim at the jamming heads" or "move the laser AWAY from an area if you start to hear it about to lock on" - like some other promotional videos.

• The red sports car with it's large headlights was an easy target for the M20, AL and LI at closer ranges it seemed. Unfortunately due to time constraints we had to switch to the "red" car half way through the tests when the "blue" car had gear box problems. After a few runs against the red car, the blue car was running again so the last few tests of the day were against the blue car (and LI)

They got high PTs on the AL as well there not aiming at the usual spots cops aim at.

This statement is somewhat correct, half answered in the third point above. But then again, what is "usual"? What is "real world"?

Real world (from the driver's POV) would have been switching the jammer off long before the PT on any jammers / test runs. What was not shown in the videos was the speed at which the incoming cars were coming at prior to the jammer alerting them to laser. The driver's hit the brakes when their jammer alerted to laser. You can see from the resulting speeds obtained at PT that almost every jammer in every test gave more than enough time to slow down.

Real world (from the laser operator's POV) is that if they cannot get a reading aiming at the front plate, then they move to the headlight. If they still cannot get a reading, then what? What about the thread on RD.net of a police officer knowing all too well about jammers and getting a reading on a Blinder system (much to the owner's amazment). If the police become more familiar with jammers and their capabilities (sub $250 diode jammer thread) then what will become "the usual spots cops aim at" is they don't get a reading from the plate or headlight?

[delonix]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

In my view, the tests were flawed in that they did not have a "controlled" vehicle, with optimized/controlled mounting positions for each testing scenario. There are simply too many points-of-variance.

As mentioned before, we invited several owners to test their cars at the start of the day. Three cars with a Blinder M20 were tested before we began testing the different models (M25, AL, LI, LPP & GF100) on the blue car seen in the video. Half way through the day the blue car had gear box problems and with the sun going down, we had to switch to the red car until the gear box was fixed on the other one. We did not put a M20 on the same (test) car since you can no longer buy the M20.

So yes, not the idealistic conditions for comparing different jammer's performance to one another. Were they flawed? Almost every run of every jammer gave more than enough time to slow down.

[The STIG]

Originally Posted by eire05

They got high PTs on the AL as well there not aiming at the usual spots cops aim at.

There are cops that are not *Text Book* and they point where they point. We cannot guarentte where they will hit. Maybe they hit your headlight because that is all they see because of a rig infront of you and its blocking most of his view. I like how people defend something and make up excuses and deny, plus there has been other videos and testing showing the LI's having high PT issues. Just my thought.

[The STIG]

Wow..just noticed they sell the LI and the *Laser Mask*. I see they rely on *Other* testing groups to promote its products but again...the 2 head LI got a PT at and over 700 feet. If these people are true testers it should have been installed correctlly but all we see is them shooting from outside the HUD. True testers show through the HUD and even some IR to show the detection level of the jammer firing.

[TSi+WRX]

Hi delonix - it's good to be able to converse with those involved in a first-person manner.

Originally Posted by delonix

• The laser operator in these videos/tests is independent, very knowledgeable in LIDAR and does not sell any products.

Although to some (unfortunately, the majority of this community shares this sentiment - one which I wish I could change, and have failed despite some logical pleas), the fact that the video - and thus the test - itself is associated with a speed-detection countermeasures equipment re-seller makes it, in-entirety, questionable, to me, honestly, it is not an issue, since this point-of-conflict was openly declared.

My day-job is basic-science research. This is a field which, if it were not for the contribution of big corporate entities, would not exist in the same form it does today. Although routinely vested with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars of input, what we scientists report back to the companies - provided that we're honorable and ethical in our science - is just that: the scientific facts, however they play out, be they favorable to the company or not.

To me, as long as the conflict-of-interest is declared, and the testing done fairly, there's no problem. IMveryHO, in your case, you did not run afoul of this consideration. There is a big opening splash of your commercial website.

I do not feel that it is necessary for you to justify the fact that you had an outside, independent, LIDAR operator present. The test is what it is, and I think that its facts can stand for themselves.

• The red sports car with it's large headlights was an easy target for the M20, AL and LI at closer ranges it seemed. Unfortunately due to time constraints we had to switch to the "red" car half way through the tests when the "blue" car had gear box problems. After a few runs against the red car, the blue car was running again so the last few tests of the day were against the blue car (and LI)

...and, from your other follow-up:

Originally Posted by delonix

As mentioned before, we invited several owners to test their cars at the start of the day. Three cars with a Blinder M20 were tested before we began testing the different models (M25, AL, LI, LPP & GF100) on the blue car seen in the video. Half way through the day the blue car had gear box problems and with the sun going down, we had to switch to the red car until the gear box was fixed on the other one. We did not put a M20 on the same (test) car since you can no longer buy the M20.

So yes, not the idealistic conditions for comparing different jammer's performance to one another. Were they flawed? Almost every run of every jammer gave more than enough time to slow down.

My wording may have been at-fault, and if you took offense to this, I offer my sincere apologies. As with most cases of "mistaken intentions" via the Internet, I blame this on the inability of this medium of communication to fully convey what is intended by the author of the words - and I am, if must be, at-fault here.

What I meant by the word "flawed" is that the conditions of testing - based upon the "switch" of vehicles (which I now understand is a testing/practical constraint, and I thank you for coming forward with it in an honest and forthcoming manner) - provided for an undeniable and rather unpredictable point-of-variance, and thus did not allow for proper control of this critical parameter.

It is not to say that the test was flawed in terms of the real-world "outbraking" scenario, but rather, that in terms of systemic controls, this variable exists, and is a compromise of the parameters of the test, which you'd noted very well, yourself, above, in that the different vehicles offer different LIDAR profiles.

This statement is somewhat correct, half answered in the third point above. But then again, what is "usual"? What is "real world"?

Real world (from the driver's POV) would have been switching the jammer off long before the PT on any jammers / test runs. What was not shown in the videos was the speed at which the incoming cars were coming at prior to the jammer alerting them to laser. The driver's hit the brakes when their jammer alerted to laser. You can see from the resulting speeds obtained at PT that almost every jammer in every test gave more than enough time to slow down.

Real world (from the laser operator's POV) is that if they cannot get a reading aiming at the front plate, then they move to the headlight. If they still cannot get a reading, then what? What about the thread on RD.net of a police officer knowing all too well about jammers and getting a reading on a Blinder system (much to the owner's amazment). If the police become more familiar with jammers and their capabilities (sub $250 diode jammer thread) then what will become "the usual spots cops aim at" is they don't get a reading from the plate or headlight?

The question of "real world" is very problematic.

Your proposed hypothetical situation above is, indeed, a very big worry.

What I believe that my fellow hobbyists here are saying, though, exists in the similar vein - that of hypothetical encounters that are, same as your proposed, based not in small part on some of our actual encounters.

Here in the US, we do not often see tripod-based LIDAR enforcement. Most of our enforcers favor handheld operation, with the unit stabilized by using some hardpoint of their patrol vehicle, or even shot "free hand."

This offers us some advantages (i.e. that the gun is not held true-steady), but at the same time, also exposes us to certain risks (i.e. "panning," speaking solely of the operator either purposefully - or not - shooting different points on the vehicle, and achieving PT).

At the same time, unfortunately, we are routinely faced, in many areas (including two local townships within my own city, both of which I commute through each and every day), with < 500, or even < 300 feet engagement distances - which may explain the seemingly uniquely American fascination with "JTG/JFG" performance.

Certainly, via your "outbraking" scenario, just about all of the jammers you've tested meet the necessary performance criteria, but I think that other hobbyists here have yet other needs, which is what they are concerned about, given the performance of the various devices that you've documented.

Overall, I think that your videos are well-done (given the vehicle constraints), well-documented, and openly documented (i.e. conflict-of-interest noted). And I think it is just the technicalities which is spurring debate between the hobbyists. I hope that these discussions - my own thoughts included - can help you further improve your testing.



-------

PS: Just a couple of questions which struck my fancy when I viewed your videos. I hope you can supply the necessary information in hopes of filling these holes.

What firmware/software versions were tested, of each of the devices (LI, AL G8, Blinder M20, Blinder M25) ?

How many coats of VEIL was applied to the VEIL'ed vehicle's headlights? any additional passive countermeasures used on said vehicle?

[delonix]

Originally Posted by The STIG

Wow..just noticed they sell the LI and the *Laser Mask*. I see they rely on *Other* testing groups to promote its products

Which is why we set up this test day.
We invited customers to come and test product.

We found it very difficult to film through the HUD, which is why we did it outside. Also to show there was no block of the receiver's window.

With practice we are better at (holding the camera behind the gun) now, although personally I find it much easier to hold it steady on a reflective portion of the car when not holding the camera too....the same conditions a police officer works in.

In our second round of testing the M25 (at a user's request) it WAS filmed through the HUD. I don't have an IR filter, so the next best thing was to hold a radio up to the jammer's speaker from the test car.

We will be doing it this way from now on, so you can hear the jammer firing in the videos.

[delonix]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Hi delonix - it's good to be able to converse with those involved in a first-person manner.

Likewise it's good to be able to talk about these products on a forum without the risk of being banned

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Although to some (unfortunately, the majority of this community shares this sentiment - one which I wish I could change, and have failed despite some logical pleas), the fact that the video - and thus the test - itself is associated with a speed-detection countermeasures equipment re-seller makes it, in-entirety, questionable, to me, honestly, it is not an issue, since this point-of-conflict was openly declared.

Which is why we try and sell many brands. We also invited people to come down on the day and test product. Many even had a go at shooting the laser guns themselves. Everybody walked away from that day with a much better understanding of LIDAR.

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I do not feel that it is necessary for you to justify the fact that you had an outside, independent, LIDAR operator present. The test is what it is, and I think that its facts can stand for themselves.

This was done for reasons two-fold;
Firstly the most obvious reason was he owns three laser guns! Secondly I liked the idea of an outside (non-retailer) shooting the laser guns. In fact I was surprised at the PT's we got. But then again, he wasn't "briefed" to JTG. As much as I'd prefer to see more JTG results, I still posted the videos for all to see.

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

My wording may have been at-fault, and if you took offense to this, I offer my sincere apologies. As with most cases of "mistaken intentions" via the Internet, I blame this on the inability of this medium of communication to fully convey what is intended by the author of the words - and I am, if must be, at-fault here.

What I meant by the word "flawed" is that the conditions of testing - based upon the "switch" of vehicles (which I now understand is a testing/practical constraint, and I thank you for coming forward with it in an honest and forthcoming manner) - provided for an undeniable and rather unpredictable point-of-variance, and thus did not allow for proper control of this critical parameter.

No offense taken The reality is I haven't had the time to write up the field test report of the day with all things explained (like gear box problems etc) I've only uploaded some of the videos so far.

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

The question of "real world" is very problematic.

Your proposed hypothetical situation above is, indeed, a very big worry.

What I believe that my fellow hobbyists here are saying, though, exists in the similar vein - that of hypothetical encounters that are, same as your proposed, based not in small part on some of our actual encounters.

Here in the US, we do not often see tripod-based LIDAR enforcement. Most of our enforcers favor handheld operation, with the unit stabilized by using some hardpoint of their patrol vehicle, or even shot "free hand."

This offers us some advantages (i.e. that the gun is not held true-steady), but at the same time, also exposes us to certain risks (i.e. "panning," speaking solely of the operator either purposefully - or not - shooting different points on the vehicle, and achieving PT).

At the same time, unfortunately, we are routinely faced, in many areas (including two local townships within my own city, both of which I commute through each and every day), with < 500, or even < 300 feet engagement distances - which may explain the seemingly uniquely American fascination with "JTG/JFG" performance.

Certainly, via your "outbraking" scenario, just about all of the jammers you've tested meet the necessary performance criteria, but I think that other hobbyists here have yet other needs, which is what they are concerned about, given the performance of the various devices that you've documented.

Overall, I think that your videos are well-done (given the vehicle constraints), well-documented, and openly documented (i.e. conflict-of-interest noted). And I think it is just the technicalities which is spurring debate between the hobbyists. I hope that these discussions - my own thoughts included - can help you further improve your testing.

We are still learning, and hope the next time we test will be even better than the first time. Not to ever compete with GOL, we just wanted there to be one done here (AU) so some of our enthusiasts could come down and see with their own eyes.



-------

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

What firmware/software versions were tested, of each of the devices (LI, AL G8, Blinder M20, Blinder M25) ?

How many coats of VEIL was applied to the VEIL'ed vehicle's headlights? any additional passive countermeasures used on said vehicle?

Al 8.3
M20 - there were 2 models tested, two of them prior to the 30 second start up thing change.
M25 - was brand new November 2007 (Not sure of the different versions)
LI - as above
GF100 - the model before the recent firmware change which adds 4 second auto cut off

Veil:
One coat on headlights, two coats (one either side) of a clear number plate protector. No laser shield and no other products used.

[TSi+WRX]

Again, thank you for the exchange.

Originally Posted by delonix

This was done for reasons two-fold;
Firstly the most obvious reason was he owns three laser guns! Secondly I liked the idea of an outside (non-retailer) shooting the laser guns. In fact I was surprised at the PT's we got. But then again, he wasn't "briefed" to JTG. As much as I'd prefer to see more JTG results, I still posted the videos for all to see.

I think that this is perfectly fine. As long as there was consistency with what he did to elicit the PTs, I think the figures obtained are perfectly valid.

We are still learning, and hope the next time we test will be even better than the first time. Not to ever compete with GOL, we just wanted there to be one done here (AU) so some of our enthusiasts could come down and see with their own eyes.

I feel that the more groups that can test, the better. It's most interesting to see data from different groups, and to see what both could've been done to improve their results, as well as to let *all* such results become a "database" of-sorts, to allow the individual end-user, particularly those like me, who do not have easy access to police LIDAR equipment, to interpolate/extrapolate what various setups will be able to achieve on their own vehicle(s).

Al 8.3
M20 - there were 2 models tested, two of them prior to the 30 second start up thing change.
M25 - was brand new November 2007 (Not sure of the different versions)
LI - as above
GF100 - the model before the recent firmware change which adds 4 second auto cut off

Veil:
One coat on headlights, two coats (one either side) of a clear number plate protector. No laser shield and no other products used.

Thank you!

[delonix]

No worries. One advantage a retailer has is, of course, access to many products and test equipment.

If there's ever anything (anyone) would like to see, let me know and I'll do my best to accommodate.