Separate Emitter & Reciever?

**Aquaholic** · 03-24-2011 06:24 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.

**Google Adsense** · 03-24-2011 06:24 PM

**Z1NONLY** · 03-24-2011 07:17 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 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

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 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by xyd

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

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 08:31 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 08:45 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 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by xyd

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 09:31 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 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

Originally Posted by xyd

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 02:18 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?