Jammer Poll

**BlinderGuy** · 06-25-2008, 04:04 PM

Does a Jammer have to JTG to be sufficient in real world encounters? Please don't turn this into a my jammer is better than your jammer. Please just answere question and comment why you think what you think...Thank You!!

**noTe** · 06-25-2008, 04:06 PM

Absolutely.

In Ohio we have LEOs that shoot from less than 600 feet away. I've had to JTG because I didn't have enough time to even turn off my jammer.

If I didn't have a jammer that couldn't do JTG, it would be worthless to own a jammer here.

**corkguykev** · 06-25-2008, 04:35 PM

its definitely a major + to have a jammer that can JTG IMO.

i was lasered at around 200-300 feet last year when i got my first ever ticket. the LEO was hiding in an entrance to someones house

if you intend on having rear protection, its even more necessary to get JFG performance as rear laser is generally done up close and the rear of most/all cars is much bigger and flatter so more reflective than the front.

**BlinderGuy** · 06-25-2008, 04:38 PM

Thats sneeky..If it was my house I'ld open the door real quick and knock him down!!! Oh..I'm sorry officer I was just going to check my mail!!

**corkguykev** · 06-25-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by mhardy2288

Thats sneeky..If it was my house I'ld open the door real quick and knock him down!!! Oh..I'm sory officer I was just going to check my mail!!

there was a lane going up to the house and he had the patrol car backed up in there. he jumped out as i was about to pass by and nailed me with an Ultralyte

.

i had no CMs at the time except for an old whistler 1710 that i had quit using because it falsed like mad and never actually picked up the few cops i had met that were running laser, which i knew f**k all about until i came on here

.

i should thank him though. now ive 2 LPPs and a V1 because of that

as of this evening its 2-1 to me after a rear laser save (my first) doing 130 in a 100km zone here.

i really need to get the dashcam up and running...........

**TSi+WRX** · 06-26-2008, 07:11 AM

I voted "no" - but I want to qualify that vote.

The problem is that I think close (near point-blank) range PTs arise as a combination of concerns begin to manifest themselves.

There is more than sufficient evidence, via the videos on this Forum, to show that a multitude of concerns such as jammer "output power," jammer receptive capability, vehicle hardpoints and profile (and even paint scheme), and even LIDAR scatter from nearby objects (a theory proposed by C55, which is something he derived from observations made during jammer testing sessions - read here: http://www.radardetector.net/forums/411105-post3.html ), and all do indeed contribute to extreme-short-range PTs.

I think that extreme-short-range PTs is a multifactorial problem, and I think that to pursue "true-JTG" is thus more of an academic/testing concern - where as "effective JTG," allowing the vehicle to escape even short-range shots, with engagement distances of between 150 to 200 ft., is something that should be pursued in terms of "real-world" usage, given many area's propensity for short-range (<500 ft.) engagements, as well as the increasing likelihood of rear-enforcement.

JZ · 06-26-2008, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I voted "no" - but I want to qualify that vote.

The problem is that I think close (near point-blank) range PTs arise as a combination of concerns begin to manifest themselves.

There is more than sufficient evidence, via the videos on this Forum, to show that a multitude of concerns such as jammer "output power," jammer receptive capability, vehicle hardpoints and profile (and even paint scheme), and even LIDAR scatter from nearby objects (a theory proposed by C55, which is something he derived from observations made during jammer testing sessions - read here: http://www.radardetector.net/forums/411105-post3.html ), and all do indeed contribute to extreme-short-range PTs.

I think that extreme-short-range PTs is a multifactorial problem, and I think that to pursue "true-JTG" is thus more of an academic/testing concern - where as "effective JTG," allowing the vehicle to escape even short-range shots, with engagement distances of between 150 to 200 ft., is something that should be pursued in terms of "real-world" usage, given many area's propensity for short-range (<500 ft.) engagements, as well as the increasing likelihood of rear-enforcement.

X2

**ARadarDetector** · 06-26-2008, 11:15 PM

Most of my attacks in houston are 600 feet or less....and even more so.....200 feet or less...in Houston the cops sit on the shoulder and wait until you come over the hill....you cant see them until last minute when you come over the hill...next thing you know you are being shot sitting right on top of them! So yes...JTG is needed here.

Its always smart also to mount valentine one radar or another radar detector great at detecting laser mounted up high...sometimes the V1 goes off before my laser jammer does...which gives me a head notice to slow down and get ready to kill the jammer.

**Tambourine-Man** · 06-27-2008, 05:40 AM

Technically, doesn't JTG mean right down to zero feet? I should think a PT at under 150 - 200 feet would be acceptable, maybe even desirable as you may not want to JTG. I can imagine if and when I get mine and get a laser hit, I may be too excited to remember to turn mine off once I get down to PSL so a PT would equate to my turning it off. (Of course if I were to get a ticket becaseu of a Pt at under 200 feet I would be singing a different tune.

I don't understand about the JFG thing. If you go by a LEO (and are so unobservant as to not see him at under 200 feet) and he shoots you that clsoe from the rear there is still a problem because he is shoting an angle so the reading will be less than your actual speed as you are not yet moving directly away from him. How much less? I don't know. You do the math.

**TSi+WRX** · 06-27-2008, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Tambourine-Man

Technically, doesn't JTG mean right down to zero feet?

Yes. Technically, "JTG" should be just that - down to "nil."

This is why I see things a little differently, and try to frame things in terms of "true JTG," or "effective" - the latter of which is, of course, a personal definition, and based on the end-user, one I think would be very much variable, and based heavily on their typical engagements.

I should think a PT at under 150 - 200 feet would be acceptable, maybe even desirable as you may not want to JTG. I can imagine if and when I get mine and get a laser hit, I may be too excited to remember to turn mine off once I get down to PSL so a PT would equate to my turning it off. (Of course if I were to get a ticket becaseu of a Pt at under 200 feet I would be singing a different tune.

+1 to both. That's the problem, ain't it?

Yes, the correct thing to do would be to disengage as soon as you reach PSL or "reasonable" (if that's all that can be achieved), but situations will come up where such good practice is, for that time, impossible. Then, indeed, an extreme-short-range PT would effectively duplicate such a tactical disengagement, but like you said, that, in and of itself, is a double-edged sword, particularly for those of us who routinely see engagements that initialize at less than 300 ft.

I don't understand about the JFG thing. If you go by a LEO (and are so unobservant as to not see him at under 200 feet) and he shoots you that clsoe from the rear there is still a problem because he is shoting an angle so the reading will be less than your actual speed as you are not yet moving directly away from him. How much less? I don't know. You do the math.

I'm trying my hardest to avoid the math.

But honestly, I think that a minimum "JFG" of 50 to 100 ft. must be achieved, as it is very possible, IMveryHO, to engage targets at this distance, even at-speed, once they've passed.

Also, road-conditions may cut such favorable cosine angles to near-nil.