Escort 95000ci Radar Detector and LPP Laser Jammer

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarNutt

Did anyone really answer this poor guy's question???

I got bored reading this thread, so I am replying to his original post.

Er......

Actually, my follow-up posts on the first page comprehensively address the concerns that nixem initially posted.

Nix, IMHO I don't believe you'll have any issues with using 2 jammers together. There are other forum members who've got multiple products on their vehicle. I suggest checking out this thread and asking some of them about their experiences.

http://www.radarreviews.net/forums/l....html#post6735

As my follow-up - post 6, page 1 - to the OP's questions suggested, although there currently exists a lot of anecdotal and qualitative evidence to suggest that jammer synergy does exist, the comprehensive picture isn't necessary always positive.

Yes, many of the combos work well together, but potential problems do exist, and that was explored in the "crosstalk" section of post 6. as well as, more in-depth, the latter posts in this continuing thread.

My thinking is even if the LPP and 9500 jammers "see" each other's return fire to the laser gun, I can't imagine that it would make it any easier for the laser gun. Just seems to me it would get even more jumbled data back. UNLESS - and this is the only possible problem I can imagine - unless the jammers think each other is a laser gun, and they key off that light pattern and try to jam each other instead of the real laser gun.

Exactly the problem.

If the second jammer is seeing extraneous/"spilled" light from the first, and is now sending the jamming pulse in response to the output of the first jammer, that could obviously produce issues.

A Blinder-and-X (device X would be "any other jammer") combo is of particular concern, and has been repeatedly cited by many to be the cause of such crosstalk problems. Exactly why this is so is till an unknown, but I speculate that it's due to precisely the scenario that you spoke about, above.

If you'll search some past posts both here and on RD.net, you'll see that this has been discussed many times. At first, it was speculated that jam-codes were going to be the big worry - now, however, after early data, it seems that actual jamming capability (or rather, the decrease thereof!) may be the big bogey!

[TSi+WRX]

^ "Burn" marks on metal?

ROFL! Right.....and so what would happen to your retina? or your skin?

That's outright laughable.

Such "burn appearing" spots can be caused by any of a number of usual road-debris and environmental concerns. It's actually among the "bread-and-butter" items that are worked on by car-detailers and paint refinishing shops.

There's absolutely no way that any regulating authority would authorize the use of anything that carries with it the potential of THAT much damage - not only to personal property (i.e. the car...imagine the property-claim lawsuits that would ensue from such a device), but to citizenry.

---

Again, vehicle greenhouse glass DOES exert a negative effect on both the LIDAR outgoing as well as reception.

There's been numerous confirmation from hobbyists that an "in vehicle" targeting practice - through vehicle glass - noticeably reduces targeting as well as lock range (but again, the decrease from, say, 1200 ft. to 900 ft., in most of today's real-world urban-enforcement scenarios, which can be well under 800 ft., or even under 500, would thus mean that this effect is near-nil, and may not even be noticed by most enforcers) - this is specifically framed in the manner of trying to effect lock on the targeted vehicle from as far as possible, as soon as possible (again, this translates to the fact that, very realistically, most enforcers will simply *not* see a difference, with the device used in the typical manner that they utilize them for).

Similarly, even the most respected detector maker - Mike Valentine - has said that *any* vehicle glass takes a toll on laser detection.

Don't get me wrong - I'd *love* to see our jammers work, and work well, from in-vehicle locations.

However, it's already been demonstrated that this is a *severe* limitation for LED-based jammers.....and currently, although untested for the laser-diode based jammers (I'd suspect that a part of this has to do with the failures of the LED-based, in this scenario), has been recommended-against by even the makers of these devices (first-person warnings from the likes of Ivan, who designed the AL/LPP, as well as the LI; each the most cloned and most highly regarded active jammers, to-date).

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

and so what would happen to your retina?

Ummm... you are aware that all laser units come with a warning stating not to look directly into the unit if power is on, don't you?

Such "burn appearing" spots can be caused by any of a number of usual road-debris and environmental concerns.

Anyone who can't distinguish a burn mark from a paint chip, needs to see their optometrist. It's a fairly obvious distinction.

imagine the property-claim lawsuits that would ensue

How so? If you noticed a burn mark on your headlight right now (and they're not easy to spot) how would you know where it came from in the first place? If you don't know who put it there, how are you going to bring a lawsuit against them?

Mike Valentine - has said that *any* vehicle glass takes a toll on laser detection.

Which is why Valentine doesn't offer a remote detector...

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Ummm... you are aware that all laser units come with a warning stating not to look directly into the unit if power is on, don't you?

Certainly!

Anyone who can't distinguish a burn mark from a paint chip, needs to see their optometrist. It's a fairly obvious distinction.

How so? If you noticed a burn mark on your headlight right now (and they're not easy to spot) how would you know where it came from in the first place? If you don't know who put it there, how are you going to bring a lawsuit against them?

^ Ah, but there's the catch.

If it's known that police LIDAR causes such property damage (less to say damage to motorists' and bystanders' eyes), then you could easily bring suit every time you're "lasered."

And I can hardly believe that our fellow hobbyists - many of whom have *very* pricey automobiles that are a part of their core "car hobby," would subject these same vehicles, their precious property, to repeated LIDAR testing, should such burns be an issue.

Honestly, this just doesn't make sense - and goes along pretty well with the "death ray" that one of the other posters in that thread referenced.

Besides, if said "burns" were true, you could only imagine what may have happened to the bicyclists and walkers who were targeted by said hobbyists in their videos....at close range, no less!

Which is why Valentine doesn't offer a remote detector...

^ I honestly think that they should.....

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

If it's known that police LIDAR causes such property damage then you could easily bring suit every time you're "lasered."

Yes you could, IF you knew that you were being lasered AND you knew that it could cause burn marks on your car...

Not many people are aware of both of those things

would subject these same vehicles, their precious property, to repeated LIDAR testing, should such burns be an issue.

No they wouldn't subject their cars to this IF they knew that it was happening. Keep in mind that these burn marks don't 'stick out' like a sore thumb. Most of the time they have to be viewed up close at an angle. We're not talking about using a flashlight on the car. It's a laser! It's not beyond the scope of what lasers are known to be able to do. Lasers are some of the most accurate cutting tools around. Leaving a small burn mark on your car is a drop in the bucket of what they are capable of.

[TSi+WRX]

RE: legal recourse for "laser damage"

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Yes you could, IF you knew that you were being lasered AND you knew that it could cause burn marks on your car...

Not many people are aware of both of those things

It would be easy enough to prove, with a detector and an in-vehicle camera kit, which is now becoming rather commonplace for both concerned citizenry as well as for autosport/driving enthusiasts.

No they wouldn't subject their cars to this IF they knew that it was happening. Keep in mind that these burn marks don't 'stick out' like a sore thumb. Most of the time they have to be viewed up close at an angle. We're not talking about using a flashlight on the car. It's a laser! It's not beyond the scope of what lasers are known to be able to do. Lasers are some of the most accurate cutting tools around. Leaving a small burn mark on your car is a drop in the bucket of what they are capable of.

Yes, lasers are very capable of such damage, but most certainly not in the format that they're being employed as speed-detections tools.

I cross-posted this question on RD.net, and so far, there has been nothing but ridicule (unfortunately) about this particular "observation" made by the aforementioned poster on the cited thread.

Truthfully, it holds about as much water as the claim of a "death ray" equipped police vehicle.

Honestly, I would seriously doubt that owners of Ferraris, BMW M-series vehicles, AMG-Mercedes, and untold numbers of other high-end/enthusiast vehicles would willingly subject their cars to LIDAR testing, should this truly be the case.

Furthermore, it's not like the laser is a pinpoint at-distance. Typically, at "painted" distances of anywhere from a quarter-mile to less than 300 ft., the beam can cover anything from more than a quarter of the vehicle's frontal area to inches (at less than 50 ft., to just over an inch at 30 ft.).....there should be scorch marks all over the car....not just pinpoint!

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

It would be easy enough to prove, with a detector and an in-vehicle camera kit

Seriously, radar enthusiast aside, how many 'normal' people do you know with a in-vehicle camera?

I cross-posted this question on RD.net, and so far, there has been nothing but ridicule

I really couldn't care less about people like this. When someone just ridicules for the sake of ridiculing and offers no factual basis, it shows they are narrow-minded, and narrow-minded people opinions don't sway me. It says more about their lack of character than the people they are ridiculing.

Typically, at "painted" distances of anywhere from a quarter-mile to less than 300 ft., the beam can cover anything from more than a quarter of the vehicle's frontal area

This is a very good point TSi+WRX! Logically, that right there would kill the argument

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Seriously, radar enthusiast aside, how many 'normal' people do you know with a in-vehicle camera?

That should be amended to add car-nuts, too.

If both of those groups are excluded, then it's very, very few, indeed.

RE: the cross-post

I really couldn't care less about people like this. When someone just ridicules for the sake of ridiculing and offers no factual basis, it shows they are narrow-minded, and narrow-minded people opinions don't sway me. It says more about their lack of character than the people they are ridiculing.

That's why I said "unfortunately." Indeed, that saddens me, too.

I wanted a logical/reasonable explanation - either by actual hard-science or by physical/real-world example, which was what I posted prior.

This is a very good point TSi+WRX! Logically, that right there would kill the argument

That was my line of thinking, originally - that this couldn't be true because at quarter-mile, a typical police LIDAR covers about 36-inches, and at 1800 or so ft., IIRC, the coverage area is nearly as big as the frontal aspect of a Dodge Neon.... Even at 30 ft., it's still about a one inch dot.

No pinpoint burns....not that I can imagine....

[TSi+WRX]

Hi Milan -

OK, we've got another problem here - again illustrating why I don't really trust Escort's Tech-Support department all that much...

Remember this one? -->

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

I've also heard that the 9500ci won't even turn on if the ZR4 package isn't installed (what's up with that?).

To which I speculated:

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Unknown. It could be a "problem" with the way the firmware code was written, that if those particular heads aren't plugged in, it may not pass the start-up hardware check.

To which was followed this reply:

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

I have a call in to one of their head techs so that I can clear this up. I should know more in an hour or so. On the bright side, I just realized that the 9500ci is NOT made in china, it is made in Canada, so that was nice to see As soon as I talk to Jim I'll let you know what he says about the need to install the ZR4 section with the 9500ci.

And then:

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

OK I talked with their head tech Jim and learned a lot of great things. Unfortunately he confirmed that the ZR4 heads need to be installed, but only because the self-diagnostics would pick up that they weren't plugged into the main interface.

Apparently, this is not true in the case of the rear head.

The following comes from a ZR4 user, first-hand:

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX View Post
Milan on RR.net contacted, IIRC, the Escort Tech-Support department to ask about the possibility of running the 9500ci without its ZR4 components - in particular, the rear head.

Apparently, this is (reportedly) not possible - the tech cited that the 9500ci will fail its start-up self-check if any of the ZR4 heads are not functioning properly.....

The following is djram80's reply - and yes, he's a 9500ci owner/user:

Not true. About a week after I installed my 9500ci, my rear shifter died as I went through some heavy rain. It was alerting constantly. So, I pulled off the freeway, shut off the 9500ci and unplugged the rear shifter. When I started the 9500ci, during the startup sequence, I got a message something like, "RSFT N/A" or something like that. The 9500ci worked just fine for the next few days without the rear shifter plugged in until I got a replacement head.

I am now pursuing whether or not the same holds true of the front head(s).

My faith in Escort's Tech-Support is again shaken.....

['09 Milan]

Hi Allen. I'm not sure I understand the confusion. When the 9500ci 'boots up' it does a self-test of the entire system. This is a good thing. Obviously if a head is missing, or if the wire going to it has been damaged or cut, it will report this so the owner can fix it instead of using the 9500ci with the misconception that something is working when it isn't. The sensors for the laser detection are in the heads, so if they are disconnected then that feature cannot work. You can get around this by simply turning that feature off. I'm not sure why djram80 didn't just do this, maybe he wanted to still use the front sensors. According to what he reported he disconnect the head, BUT that then left him with an open plug that was exposed to the 'heavy rain' that he was getting. This easily could have caused a short and explain why it worked fine at first but then he had problems. As soon as I get a new 9500ci (hopefully within the next 3-4 weeks) I will be working on a bypass plug that will allow the removal of the heads without getting the error messages.