Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Default Results of my LTI Ultralyte LR Rev. B 125 PPS vs. AL G8

    The LTI Utralyte 100 LR Rev B. 125 PPS was able to get multiple punch-throughs with my AL G8 on the back of my car, mounted just above the middle of the plate and properly leveled. I'm assuming that as I have an older AL, I need a software upgrade to cover this variant of the 100 LR or is my jammer head defective again? To AL's credit, they did, just recently, replace it with a new one as the original one started to exhibit the well documented problem seen by others here of falseing with three beeps etc. Anyone from AL care to chime in and let me know if there is a fix for her?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Somewhere In Between Right And Wrong


    One AL head isnt going to JFG the UL unless you are aiming it at the jammer. From 500 feet onward you should do well with just the single head. The rear is the hardest to protect because of all those highly reflective tailights, plates/ flat surfaces etc.

    What kind of vehicle is it on?

    What were the ranges on the PT's, where were you aiming to get them etc?

    3beep false is caused by an infinity or nissan or an unknown gun.


  3. #3


    The 3 beep falses were in my garage, on the road and parked. It would also stay on indefinitely (indicating the presence of a LIDAR signal) till I cycled the power on button off and on again. They replaced that head as they admitted it was a defective run of heads and that issue disappeared with the replacement head.

    Its on my Dark Pewter Metallic 2005 Mercedes C55.

    The ranges were from 0' out to about 50'. As one would expect, at the very sharp angle created by being so close to the gun, there is punch through but Noory is right, the AL G8 offers satisfactory protection from tests just done a few minutes ago. Glad I don't need two heads!

    BTW, my LI dual front was JTG with the Rev B. as well as the PL2.

    Now to find a LA Speedlaser II or III and a PL3. Anyone need some extra Holiday shopping ca$h?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Somewhere In Between Right And Wrong


    Oh those are extremely close range PT's. Im impressed that the single head did so well.

    AL and LPP are very good jammers, but single heads are limited with their detection range especially at close distances. My single head LPP did very well against the UL over 300 feet, under 300 feet it was JTG on centre mast but i could pick off my headlights on average of about 100-150 feet, I did pick off a headlight a few times around 280 feet which was dissapointing to me and the reason I went with a dual head setup.

    Dual head setup fixed it all and it was JTG after some testing and getting the heads in the optimized position for the car.

    Glad to hear the LI is JTG. Its proving to be a very solid jammer. Wonder why it doesnt say ultralyte though?

    Question, the audio feedback from the UL when jamming with the LI was it a steady buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz tone

    or more of a bzz bzz bzzz bzz bzz bzzz bzzz bzz bzzz pulsed sound from the gun when you were shooting the LI?

    How about the sound from the AL on the gun? steady bzzzzzzzzzzz or pulsed?

    I find that when you are getting the pulsed sounds from the gun you are close to a PT, the key is a steady hand and keep aiming at the spot where you are getting the pulsed audio feedback from the gun.

    The audio of the gun really helps with aiming and finding any holes in the setup.

    As for the AL falses, i wasnt aware of those problems outside of the old AL7 which was a great jammer but it falsed too much. Cant sell a jammer that always falses no matter how well it jams.

    The AL team overdrove the diodes in their heads which was the result of the 6 month time bomb. They stopped doing this thankfully so the PT's you got I doubt are the results of a defective head, rather they are the limitations of the detection of the single head.

    As IRCMUSA pointed out it cant jam what it cant see.


  5. #5
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA


    I agree with brother noory on pretty much all things said.

    With either the LPP or AL, I would imagine that only a carefully placed dual-head setup would be viable/true JFG-protection. And even this would be limited to passenger vehicles on the more modest side of the equation, and with no truly problematic hard-points/profiles.

    I think it would be very interesting to see some conclusive independent testing data to see how well a dual rear-specific LI setup (UltraSlim heads) - for which interceptor has specifically cited that its receiving optics were uniquely engineered for the needs of rear-enforcement scenarios - performs, when compared to dual LPPs or dual ALs in the same framework.



Similar Threads

  1. Need Help trying to buy an Ultralyte
    By Ozone in forum Laser Jammers - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 09:31 PM
  2. Results from Aug. 17th RD Test Inconsistent with the Results from the Off-Axis Test?
    By ZJamaican in forum Detector & Counter Measure Testing and Reviews
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 10:30 AM
  3. ULTRALYTE LTI 20-20
    By BMW^Z4 in forum Radar Detectors - General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-19-2007, 06:06 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts