Identifying and Eliminating Hotspots in the IR with Veil G4

[Lucky225]

Originally Posted by Retaliation

LOL! So all of happya$$'s jammer heads are actually increasing his lidar reflectivity?

Priceless.

Seriously though, how 'bout the car seats? They looked pretty bright under IR. Obviously you can't veil them, but maybe some IR absorbing seat covers? Of course then you'd need some sort of IR absorbing clothing as well...

Nice job with the vids though.

I'm actually kind of curious about lidar false speeds resulting from relections through the windshield and back out, possibly could use a defense of reasonable doubt. Maybe someone will bring it up in a Kelly Gatekeeper hearing on lidar =)

[suicidal4life]

Pretty good vids. I haven't had the time to watch them all yet but I have a suggestion for Veil guy. The vids would be better with the # labeled in the text. As it stands now you have to watch the first few seconds of the vid to see what # it is. Just a minor complaint but annoying none the less.

[The Veil Guy]

^The part number of each video is described in text on the description section of each video (just expand the more section).

Once we render one final video (which is my silver vehicle from the rear) then I will create one play list combining all of the separate parts into one for easier navigation.

Veil Guy

[suicidal4life]

Finally watched them all. Pretty interesting to see how the concave surfaces have a sort of parabolic effect. It makes sense that they would do thes but its interesting to see it in real life. Also the difference between the 3M tape and lasershield is quite dramatic.

If by chance you guys make any more of these videos it is probably important to keep the IR operator squatting down so its more like the angle a lidar device would see. The hotspots that appear with the camera high are not always the same ones that appeared when the camera was lowered.

[The Veil Guy]

We knew this, but we had a very limited area to work in and, to be candid, we were both dead-tired when we filmed these.

We've got more stuff coming...

Veil Guy

[QuickCummins]

very nice vids......

[TSi+WRX]

Sorry it's taken me so long....my work computer is doing funny things with volume, and once I get home in the evenings, it's an all-out blitz to get dinner on the table and for myself and the wife to put Anna to bed.

Here's my comments on the vids, again divided by video number (Roman Numerals, as defined in the vids' opening screens), as well as numbered to address different comments/thoughts/questions:


IV –

(1)

Answered question of the four reflective “bars” in the upper grill, flanking the Honda badge – they’re jammer heads.

(2)

Agreed – non-used heads should be removed, and definitely, “crosstalk” needs to be pursued, for multiple-jammer systems, especially on smaller vehicles or where mounting is accomplished in “restricted/limited real-estate.”

The latter should be self-evident in terms of importance, and I think that it is only very recently that more attention has been paid to this issue on a more quantitative basis (see my own postings on “crosstalk”). But even now, the data which we have are all decidedly still very qualitative.

The former concern, though, you well-highlighted, The VEIL Guy – I think we all wondered why happya$$’s very small and otherwise seemingly very stealthy vehicle has been so hard to “cloak,” with what even happya$$ has admitted to and repeatedly cited as unpredictable, pervasive, PTs. Seeing the IR view of his jammer heads, and assuming that he is indeed running some of them “turned off,” it would seem that those very items may be providing enough IR-reflectivity to shift the balance of the game.



V –

(1)

Rear CHMSL – definitely don’t just “VEIL the rear windscreen.” Not only will that look messy, but even if the VEIL install is done right (and thus doesn’t look messy), it’s still going to be *very* problematic, particularly for those with rear windscreen wipers and also for those who live in snowy areas, where having to routinely and repeatedly (often within the span of just one day) scrape the rear windscreen of ice and/or snow would easily and very quickly destroy the VEIL application (although *not* clearing the rear window of such precipitation accumulation is certainly possible, it really would be a big safety issue, as you would then effectively take the CHMSL completely out of the picture).

(2)

Definitely, the IR video proved what we all thought about the 3M Clear Duct Tape – it serves to “diffuse” the incoming light (visible or IR), but it does not specifically cut/reduce the IR signature. In terms of effectiveness, there’s no doubt, whatsoever, that it is not of the same magnitude as VEIL/LaserShield (or the combo thereof), and I think that this video demonstrates precisely why. Does the 3M Clear Duct Tape idea “work?” Certainly, it does – audible feedback from LIDAR proves that yes, some of the beam is getting scattered. But does it work as well as VEIL or LaserShield, certainly, no it does not, as it is not an IR-specific countermeasure. The side-by side VEIL’ed LaserShield versus un-treated 3M Clear Duct Tape comparison clearly demonstrates this fact.

[ Question – what does an UNTREATED LaserShield, with no VEIL, look like, under the same IR videography, with the state plate behind it? ]

I believe that its use – as well as the use of any passive countermeasure – is dictated by the perceived risk-benefit ratio of each unique and individual driver, as based on the perceptions of his local enforcers (i.e. StealthStalker’s area would frown upon even a “clear” plate cover, dressed with VEIL, whereas in other areas, it’s just as easy to say that a LaserShield may draw undue attention, particularly used at the rear of the vehicle, whereas the relatively unobstructive/un-noticeable 3M Clear Duct Tape may not) and, as you mentioned, The VEIL Guy the local laws and ordinances. Unfortunately, what works best, quantitatively (i.e. .LaserShield + VEIL combo), may not survive such subjective requirements, and I think this is why it’s important to know all of the different possibilities – their strengths and weaknesses – and properly make the risk-benefit ratio evaluation, for your unique needs.

(3)

Most-interesting, regarding shape/contour (both happya$$’s rear decklid [note that the IR-light reflectivity profile is near-identical to visible light, check out his garage illumination clearly lighting up these same spots] as well as, if you’ll notice, the curvature of the bumper skin where it meets the rear tail-lights and trunk, as well as, interestingly enough, not the central portion of the rear CHMSL lens, but only each of the curved sections). Perhaps, before my next vehicle purchase, I’ll have to borrow some of my friends’ military IR gear, and have a good look-see, towards which vehicle on the list have the best natural profiles. I almost think that Cadillac’s current design, with its sharp angles, might actually be the way to go!

(4)

happya$$’s tail-lights (exclusive of CHMSL).

The two of you had said something about it having rained, which impacted the set-up of VEIL on his driver’s side unit.

If you compared that unit to the passenger’s side unit, I agree, it does seem, even discounting the physical placement of happya$$ in taking the IR video and using the IR illuminator, that particular unit does seem to be more reflective than its mirror counterpart.

However, I’d also like to draw specific attention to the actual REFLECTOR itself. Note that it’s shape – this US DOT mandated “retro-reflective” passive night-lighting safety device – is clearly seen through BOTH tail-light housings. Look at time-marks 3:35 through 3:50, focusing, instead, on those areas, instead of the rear plate. Yes, the driver’s side is *much* brighter, due to both the VEIL application fault as well as the fact that the IR light source is so close to that side, but look at the passenger’s side – there exists a perfect mirror-image of the reflection seen within the driver’s side tail-lamp housing, and it’s the reflector.

And this is where I so respect the depth of pursuit that members like our European brother, fulcrum, have given to “rear profile.” fulcrum, if you’ll remember, actually physically disassembled his rear tail-light so that he could then “de-reflectorize” this reflector plate. No, he did *not* take out the reflector, which is typically very easy to do in modern vehicles – but is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS. Instead, he further physically opened the reflector, and “de-reflectorized” it by removing its own reflective material, and then re-installed the reflector so as to be able to pass visual examination.

Talk about hard-core.




VI –

(1)

“Black” mounting hardware – I both have a question about this, as well as a comment.

I’ll start off with the comment: while I do think that it would be great if jammer companies started offering “black” hardware (for one thing, it would certainly make my life easier, in terms of aesthetics), I think there may be some additional concerns. First and foremost that would come to mind would be the inclination to use cheaper – but “black” – hardware, and this is something that I, as a resident of the snow-belt, would really recommend against. Rust is the enemy of all metals, and I would imagine that although such a painted coating would help with rust-resistance, I also well understand, in being both a car-enthusiast (and thus lots of exposure to such parts and components) as well as tactical knife/flashlight enthusiast that unless such coatings are well-done and of high-quality, it’s just putting off the inevitable – and for not long, at that. Secondary to that concern is that during installation, with the use of either hand or power-tools, the friction areas of such hardware will have their finishes worn away, and that this will not only cause weather-proofing concerns as mentioned just prior, but also will cause point LIDAR return concerns. In my view, it’s probably better for the enthusiast to just assume the worst, and just hit each bit of hardware’s exposed profiles with a dab of paint and/or VEIL, just to be safe.

And that leads to my question –

I’ve always tried to use care in selecting my mounting hardware – as well as have, as many here know, pursued measures to either select mounting hardware which is either non-metallic or have made special efforts to refinish metallic ones.

So the question is this – is “black” safe? or should I be pursuing, more specifically, “IR” safe? i.e. giving each piece of hardware a coating of VEIL, to specifically drop their IR signature?

(2)

Around the 4-minute mark – and I think that this exposes a problem with the setup of the video, more than the vehicle.

happya$$ noted a hot-spot on the chrome surround of the Mitsubishi’s upper/main grill, which then “disappeared.” I think that what really caused the issue is that portion of the chrome trim is curved, thereby providing the “parabolic surface” that you spoke of prior, The VEIL Guy, but that, in this specific case, is also exacerbated by happya$$’s physical positioning of the camera and IR light source, as it literally “goes away” and then changes positions, as he repositioned himself during those 20 or so seconds that follow.

What I think this illustrates more is that in order to achieve a proper simulation of what the police LIDAR sees, one has to project incident light (either IR or visible) in a manner that’s more reflective (no pun intended) of the engagement circumstance, with thought given to angles/placement.

Again, at time-point 4:25 or so, the two of you were looking at the Mitsubishi tri-leaf symbol – and happya$$ pointed to one SPECIFIC area of the symbol lighting up more than the others.

I again believe that this is an artifact of the physical circumstances of the incident IR lighting and where happya$$ was standing – and that as those angles change, so will the perceived “hot spots.”

(3)

Hey happya$$, it looks like you’ve got both LPP heads mounted with the receivers (as defined by the optical collimator lenses), “outboard,” on this vehicle!






VII –

(1)

Speaking of “colors,” look at how much “brighter” happya$$’s wife’s red Mitsubishi is, compared to his black Honda.

There’s been some hot talk lately of red actually being the worst color (the actual surface finish, pearlescent versus metallic, per-se, notwithstanding) for LIDAR reflectivity….. based on the IR videos, I am becoming more and more convinced of this….

(2)

To return to discussion point #2 for video VI, when you had happya$$ dip down (at around time-point 3:18), so that he changed the angle of the IR illuminator and camera, it was clear that what was formerly seen as *not* an area of concern (prior to that time-point, the front bumper surface appeared quite dark), suddenly lit-up.

I think that this is exactly what happened with what was seen as the focal “hot spots” on his wife’s SUV. That upon a more realistic, more “real world” illumination angle, that those noted spots will change.

(3)

Time-mark 5:30 to 5:50

Look at the projector headlight lens.

As with the optical collimator lens of the various jammers, it’s just serving as a huge collector of IR light, and it’s flaring up, just like a cat’s eye in the dark.

Just as with the visible-light flash-photography demonstration, it’s seen, really clearly here, that projector headlights, just because they’re physically smaller than comparable reflector units, is no less of a threat, and perhaps even more, since they “concentrate” light, including that coming off the reflectors physically *behind* their focusing lens.

This can also be seen, earlier, at time points 3:23 to 3:35, for the fog-lights.

(4)

Time-mark 6:00

The compound curvatures present at the join between the vertical and horizontal hood-lines, and the grill and headlight housing areas – that’s definitely hot, and I think, The VEIL Guy that you were right-on in what you said before about these unexpected curvatures being one of our biggest downfalls.

There’s actually a similar area, if you’ll rewind to the earlier parts of the IR views on your vehicle, around time-points 3:23 to 3:35, for the aerodynamic forward “mini lip” just to the front of and under your fog-lights. You discussed this point with happya$$, starting at around time-point 6:45.



Given your frontal profile’s selective hot-spots, The VEIL Guy, that’s really smart positioning of your jammer heads. At first, I’ve gotta say, I wondered why you didn’t put them just a little closer to your center-axis, but after the review of your hardpoints, it’s no wonder you selected those positions, like you did.

[The Veil Guy]

^ Very thoughtful and good analyses of the videos.

Some of these hotspots, I think, may be potentially "amplified" given the very close proximity of our illuminator, but we had a very tight confine with which to work and we hope that artifacts [from the] "flaws" of our positioning were more than offset by the overall results.

In so far as my personal vehicle and anticipating the hotspots, we've being doing/perfecting stealth technology in this field for a very good number of years.

Nonetheless, there were a couple of surprises!

We've got some more things planned in the future to look additional things and some [additional] video that I shot that is currently being "vetted" for public release.

From our previous experiences and in-house tests, the laser shield by itself is a far better attenuator than the 3M tape; one day we will demonstrate this in another video.

With respect to IR-specific "blacks," I don't believe that is required...keeping in mind that the light amplification that is taking place is likely many orders of magnitude greater than the lidar units themselves...meaning that I believe with a little tweaking of these hotspots we can increase the frequency of JTG/JFG on his vehicle across a greater range of police lasers and targeting scenarios.

If you really wanted to be absolutely sure, you could simply Veil the little suckers.

When Steve and I get some more time, we are going to re-run his vehicle, post his hotspot removal to see if we really did make any practical performance pick-up...I can't see how we can not, though, given some of the obvious hotspots.

Your selection of the CTS may be quite a good one. As I am sure you know, there is a reason that Have Blue had its unique shape profile, radar is light, and therefore behaves in the same way when it comes to reflectivity.

Whatever one can reflect away from the targeting source, would not be "detectable." Using shape similar profiles, should only further your stealth performance, regardless of the color you ultimately choose (but I hope you select black).

Once you get the hang of it, and it sure does sound like you have, you really don't need to go through the trouble of obtaining/using such a military NVD. All you really need is the intuition to know what can get you into trouble...

Veil Guy

[TSi+WRX]

Thank you for the detailed reply, The VEIL Guy!

Originally Posted by The Veil Guy;443218Some of these hotspots, I think, may be potentially "amplified" given the very close proximity of our illuminator, but we had a very tight confine with which to work and we hope that artifacts [from the

"flaws" of our positioning were more than offset by the overall results.

Unconditionally agreed.

I completely agree that it was not the true aim of the videos, to precisely pick apart each vehicle to fully eliminate their specific hardpoints.

I totally agree that given the parameters of the video - its specific aim being to "illuminate" us, to educate us in terms of "what LIDAR sees, if it had eyes," the overall results greatly overshadow any specific shortcomings that I may have mentioned.

In so far as my personal vehicle and anticipating the hotspots, we've being doing/perfecting stealth technology in this field for a very good number of years.

Nonetheless, there were a couple of surprises!

^ I could tell by your expressions!

Continuing to learn, that's what it's all about, and I thank you for educating me more, via this set of videos, too!

From our previous experiences and in-house tests, the laser shield by itself is a far better attenuator than the 3M tape; one day we will demonstrate this in another video.

I don't doubt this at all.

I think, as I've said elsewhere, that the 3M tape "works," but on the continuum of effectiveness, even without solid evidence, my best "educated guess" is that it ranks quite low. I'd well imagine that the finely stippled surface of the LaserShield, in addition to the very fact that it is a "standoff" device (which does not directly contact the plate, in most areas) - even if it itself were not made of some material that had an effect on IR reflectivity - would all be aspects of the equation that would work in its favor.

With respect to IR-specific "blacks," I don't believe that is required...keeping in mind that the light amplification that is taking place is likely many orders of magnitude greater than the lidar units themselves...meaning that I believe with a little tweaking of these hotspots we can increase the frequency of JTG/JFG on his vehicle across a greater range of police lasers and targeting scenarios.

If you really wanted to be absolutely sure, you could simply Veil the little suckers.

Thank you for addressing that concern of mine. And you know what, since I've got "VEIL to spare" (at least for the time being), I well think that I'm not only to get crazy with some black paint, but also with G4, too.

Can't be too safe.

When Steve and I get some more time, we are going to re-run his vehicle, post his hotspot removal to see if we really did make any practical performance pick-up...I can't see how we can not, though, given some of the obvious hotspots.

^ Agreed.

Given how fat the LIDAR cone "grows," at-range, I'd also be completely surprised if all the detail work didn't have at least *some* measureable impact.

...regardless of the color you ultimately choose (but I hope you select black).

Do you have ANY idea how labor-intensive that would be, here in the Rust-Belt?

Once you get the hang of it, and it sure does sound like you have, you really don't need to go through the trouble of obtaining/using such a military NVD. All you really need is the intuition to know what can get you into trouble...

^ Again, I thank you for thinking so highly of me - but heck, don't trust me, trust my wife: "he's an idiot!"