Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,854

    Default Anti-Laser Pro-Park laser jammer vs. Osprey range finder



    Drive-Smart claimed other laser jammers would have problems detecting new laser guns because they use "look up tables" and don't have "pulse link(a technology not proven by drive-smart yet.) Jimbo responded that most of the smart jammers, quoting Blinders patent, have a generic jamming sequence if a new pulse sequence is not recognized in the table.

    I told Neil that the Blinder, ZR3, Lidatek, and the Pro-Park had generic jamming sequences. I knew for a fact the Blinder, ZR3, and the Lidatek surely had these because members of the board and myself have used these non police laser guns to test their jammers with success. What I was wrong about was assuming the Pro-Park does have a default generica jamming train. It's this fact I'm retracting, but Drive-Smart was still wrong about saying the other jammers don't have a way to react to new guns.

    I'm retracting my statement about the Pro-Park, as it does NOT detect the Osprey. I would like Neil(drive-smart) to publically appologize for making the statement other jammers wouldn't react at all to new guns because the other jammers do react with a generic jamming sequence.

    I was wrong for assuming a Pro-Park had the OLD technology that most other jammers have. It baffles me they didn't follow suit :cry: For this reason alone I would NOT feel comfortable having a Pro-Park on my car until they put a generic jamming code on their jammer. Lidatek's generic jamming code most likely uses the same amount of pulses close to the original mind blowing LE-10.

    JTW

  2. #2
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,183

    Default

    For us who dont speak french...

    can you tell us what you just said :shock:

  3. #3
    Professional
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,397

    Default

    ...?

    So you're saying... that the Antilaser Propark does NOT jam guns it doesn't recognise? That is good? Or bad? Or what?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Arington, Texas
    Posts
    985

    Default

    He is saying that unless the Pro Park is programmed for a specific gun i WIL NOT jam the gun!!!

    So all those euro guns that us Americans probabley will never face and wont have to worry about it unless they come to america!!

    But I believe the Pulse matching technology is still not a good thing because 3 things have to take place before the matching can even begin!!

    1. the computer has to say ok I dont know this pulse
    2. Then it has to say ok active the pulse matching software
    3. the pulse matching software has to send the pulse out to the jammers


    now we are talking about miliseconds mabey nano seconds depends on how well the programming was written and in what code it was written in!!

    My problem I have with this is will "Gun X" get a reading BEFORE the Software activate or begins to activate.

    The laser readings take miliseconds in best case senario.

    I just dont know how well this would work unless you had veil to buy you a second or 2, granted you did not have any Chrome.

    Prof Jim can you concor with this???

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nvr2fast
    ...?

    So you're saying... that the Antilaser Propark does NOT jam guns it doesn't recognise? That is good? Or bad? Or what?
    The Osprey uses the same diode a real speed laser gun uses and the Pro-Park doens't alert to it :-( :cry: This is VERY BAD! AntiLaser needs to do what Lidatek has been doing forever. If a new pulse train appears the jammer needs to use a high PPS generic jamming pulse sequence to try and jam the gun.

    Now if Drive-Smart does come out with this theoretical "pulse link" jammer they claim to have it'll be quite amazing, but keep in mind Drive-Smart is brand new to the laser jammer business and they don't even have a jammer on the market yet, so I would be wary of buying one until it's tested by a third party at least 6 months after the first retail unit hits the market(dont want to test juiced first production units. i.e. -- Laser mimic)

    JTW

  6. #6
    Professional
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    North of 45 //
    Posts
    856

    Default

    For us who dont speak french...

    can you tell us what you just said
    Monsieur a dit qu'il fallait attendre le prochain essai de GOL avant d'acheter votre prochain brouilleur de laser.

    This Sir said that we should wait the next test of GOL before buying your next laser jammer.

    El Senor nos avisa que sera mejor esperar la proxima prueba de los GOL antes de comprar su proximo perturbador de laser.

  7. #7
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ford_Focus_05
    He is saying that unless the Pro Park is programmed for a specific gun i WIL NOT jam the gun!!!

    So all those euro guns that us Americans probabley will never face and wont have to worry about it unless they come to america!!

    But I believe the Pulse matching technology is still not a good thing because 3 things have to take place before the matching can even begin!!

    1. the computer has to say ok I dont know this pulse
    2. Then it has to say ok active the pulse matching software
    3. the pulse matching software has to send the pulse out to the jammers


    now we are talking about miliseconds mabey nano seconds depends on how well the programming was written and in what code it was written in!!

    My problem I have with this is will "Gun X" get a reading BEFORE the Software activate or begins to activate.

    The laser readings take miliseconds in best case senario.

    I just dont know how well this would work unless you had veil to buy you a second or 2, granted you did not have any Chrome.

    Prof Jim can you concor with this???
    I don't think processing would be a problem.

    One popular jammer uses a micro with a 10 MHz Clock, and most of the instructions are processed in one clock cycle. So 1s/10000000 = one instruction every 100ns.

    Now, assume the Kustom Prolaser III, @ 200pps. 1s/200pps = one pulse every 5000000ns.

    So, from one pulse to another, the micro can execute close to 50000 instructions (5000000ns/100ns). The micro only has 2K of flash. So, if the instructions are 1 byte opcodes, I guess there could only be a max of 2000 instructions to be executed? I'm sure there is way less than that.

    The laser gun needs to receive a number of consistent pulses to be able to calculate a speed measurement, generally this is thought to be 50+.

    So, say the jammer is avergaes the time between the first three pulses, and then starts jamming the fourth pulse. It should have WAY more than enough time to process the information (whether it is matching pulses or using a lookup table) and then be able to get a pulse out a number of ns before the fourth pulse is received.

    Jim

  8. #8
    Professional
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    868

    Default

    I feel so inferior when i read posts like these :shock:

    Nano seconds and what not?

    OKay.......... JTW i respect you for this post. I guess it should be rather easy for AL to introduce a generic jamming code?

    Yeah it basically means that it will only jam guns it recgonizes, and will not jam new guns, or those that were not programmed into it's computer.

  9. #9
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    Some more thoughts:

    You would think that pulse matching would be the easiest, since a jammer has to time between pulses anyway, even when using a lookup table.

    I think the main advantage to a lookup table is that the point in time when the jamming pulses fall in relation to the gun's pulses can be specifically tailored to each laser gun, for a couple of reasons:

    1. To prevent displaying jamming codes for that particular gun
    2. For the most effective jamming of that particular gun.

    With pulse matching only, there is no ability to control where the pulses fall in relation to the sent pulses. This is the main drawback. So, in order to prevent jamming codes and also jam effectively, they would need to be able to find some kind of a "sweet spot" and method that works for all guns, which might be difficult.

    Jim

  10. #10
    Yoda of Radar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Rottweiler Land
    Posts
    10,420

    Default

    So did you just let all the air out of our baloons JTW about the AL6? :?

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2007, 06:13 AM
  2. Which laser range/speed finder to use to test jammer?
    By anjoem in forum Laser Jammers - General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2006, 01:50 AM
  3. Anti-Laser Pro Park laser jammer test DONE! -- Mouse and JTW
    By JTW in forum Laser Jammers - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2006, 12:52 AM
  4. Osprey Laser range finder W/ SPEED DETECTOR
    By hookem202 in forum Radar Detectors - General
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 12:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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