PDA

View Full Version : Separate Emitter & Reciever?



Aquaholic
03-24-2011, 04:24 PM
Is the reason that the sensors need to be mounted next to the head lights because the laser reciever is in the same enclosure as the emitters? If so, what if they were seperate? Could you mount the recievers next the the head lights and the emitters in the lower grill? It seems that it would make for a easier install on cars that don't have a place to mount the current heads without cutting up the cars grill.

Z1NONLY
03-24-2011, 05:17 PM
Short answer is yes.The rcvr needs to be near the point of aim. But the transmitters need the LIDAR gun to "see" the jamming pulses, so putting the emitters close to expected aiming points helps a little too. (particularly with short distance shots)

The modular system you are eluding to is a good theory. So good that at least one jammer manufacturer may have tested just such an application.

xyd
03-24-2011, 05:43 PM
Short answer is yes.The rcvr needs to be near the point of aim. But the transmitters need the LIDAR gun to "see" the jamming pulses, so putting the emitters close to expected aiming points helps a little too. (particularly with short distance shots)

The modular system you are eluding to is a good theory. So good that at least one jammer manufacturer may have tested just such an application.

Actually, it's a terrible theory, and I'm quoting you so you can't edit your post.

Even if the sensors are as high as the car goes, the fact that the emitters are not in line-of-sight (this is light we are talking about, not radar, **** doesn't go through road) of the gun (assuming that this is a cresting-a-hill shot) nullifies the whole theory. Gun won't see the pulses, gun gets reading.

If we aren't talking about hill shots, then this theory is moot. It just creates more work for the installer as they have to put 4 different items on their car instead of two.

Z1NONLY
03-24-2011, 06:25 PM
Short answer is yes.The rcvr needs to be near the point of aim. But the transmitters need the LIDAR gun to "see" the jamming pulses, so putting the emitters close to expected aiming points helps a little too. (particularly with short distance shots)

The modular system you are eluding to is a good theory. So good that at least one jammer manufacturer may have tested just such an application.

Actually, it's a terrible theory, and I'm quoting you so you can't edit your post.

Even if the sensors are as high as the car goes, the fact that the emitters are not in line-of-sight (this is light we are talking about, not radar, **** doesn't go through road) of the gun (assuming that this is a cresting-a-hill shot) nullifies the whole theory. Gun won't see the pulses, gun gets reading.

If we aren't talking about hill shots, then this theory is moot. It just creates more work for the installer as they have to put 4 different items on their car instead of two.

I just quoted you to demonstrate that you didn't read my post...

Z1NONLY
03-24-2011, 06:31 PM
On many cars/installs it's possible to shoot cars ELVATO style and never set off the Jammers at all. (because they never see the LIDAR.) The smaller size of rcv-only sensors will allow them to be mounted toward the outside edges of the vehicle (in multiple locations) and pick up such sneaky-smurf tactics.


From a distance, the LIDAR gun "sees" a wider area than just the beam it's shooting. So even though the gun my not be aiming at a sensor it can still see the light emitted from the transmitter. (From a distance of course)

And this system isn't intended to fix the issue of obstructions. (like hills)

xyd
03-24-2011, 06:45 PM
It's okay, I don't expect you to comprehend the complexity of the physics behind what we are talking about.

Z1NONLY
03-25-2011, 06:47 AM
It's okay, I don't expect you to comprehend the complexity of the physics behind what we are talking about.

It's okay, I don't expect you to comprehend simple english. (-much less have a clue who I am, or what experience I have with LIDAR and countermeasures.)

*Now would be a good time for you to do a little research, so you can come back and pretend you understood the "shooting" style, problem, and solution I was talking about. *

Rowan
03-25-2011, 07:31 AM
The idea of being able to separate the two would still benefit the user because it would enable the installer to mount the detector + ir transmitters in two ideal positions so it would optimise performance instead of having to compromise performance as a result of mounting too low or too centered because of the way the car is designed as well as the inconvenient size of the transponders.

xyd
03-25-2011, 09:38 AM
It's okay, I don't expect you to comprehend the complexity of the physics behind what we are talking about.

It's okay, I don't expect you to comprehend simple english. (-much less have a clue who I am, or what experience I have with LIDAR and countermeasures.)

*Now would be a good time for you to do a little research, so you can come back and pretend you understood the "shooting" style, problem, and solution I was talking about. *

It's okay, there's a reason no manufacturer has done that in the first place.

Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

Aquaholic
03-25-2011, 12:18 PM
I do not mind mounting everything seperate. I just don't want to mount everything for the whole world to see or cut up my car. I tseems to me that the lidar operator is not going to be shooting at the same exact spot on the car anyway because it's a moving target and the distance from the operator to the victim will make his laser shot jump around on the front of the car?

Z1NONLY
03-25-2011, 12:46 PM
It's okay, there's a reason no manufacturer has done that in the first place.



There are a few actually. But your implication/assumption that a lack of functional benefit is the only possible reason such a system is not on the market right now is amusing.

xyd
03-25-2011, 02:11 PM
It's okay, there's a reason no manufacturer has done that in the first place.



There are a few actually. But your implication/assumption that a lack of functional benefit is the only possible reason such a system is not on the market right now is amusing.

Oh, so there are a few who have done that, yet there is zero market for them. I wonder why? Oh I know, BECAUSE THE **** IS STUPID AND DOESN'T WORK.

Move along.

Z1NONLY
03-25-2011, 07:35 PM
It's okay, there's a reason no manufacturer has done that in the first place.



There are a few actually. But your implication/assumption that a lack of functional benefit is the only possible reason such a system is not on the market right now is amusing.

Oh, so there are a few who have done that, yet there is zero market for them. I wonder why? Oh I know, BECAUSE THE **** IS STUPID AND DOESN'T WORK.

Move along.

So...

"It's not on the market now, therefore there is no market, therefore it doesn't work." Seriously?

The "few" was reasons. There are a few reasons why it's not on the market. "Not working" isn't one of them.

xyd
03-25-2011, 07:56 PM
So...

"It's not on the market now, therefore there is no market, therefore it doesn't work." Seriously?

The "few" was reasons. There are a few reasons why it's not on the market. "Not working" isn't one of them.

Don't attempt at enlightening me or anything, just state it and assume I am going to believe you.

Riptide
03-26-2011, 09:39 AM
I read a post where Ivan said he thought about doing this but then just decided it was easier to put a receiver and transmitter together.
I'll see if I can find it.