Can someone explain Why the Double Standard With LI?

[noorudeenshakur]

Ill keep it as short and brief as possible:

When AL and LPP came out on the scene almost a year ago it caused a lot of problems in these forums for Roy.

Legal action was threatened and and as a result Roy banned an entire click of people from here because of their involvement/ sales pms or general support of LPP and strongly cautioned the rest of us not to publicly or privately discuss where people could obtain these jammers, or to sell these jammers on the forums.

We were told that allegedly the jammers(LPP and AL) violated patent laws and werent approved for sale in the USA.

We were also told that any members who sold them on the forums would be immediately and permanently banned and I know of some that were and remained banned to this day.

Also any members who discussed and informed people where they could obtain these jammers from were told if caught they would be banned.(im not sure if any actually were though)

Recently Roy Removed The LI conference. ( I wasnt happy about it).

He also made it clear that discussion about the jammers could occur but sales were prohibited.

Just like he did with LPP he cautioned members about discussion of where to obtain the jammers and threatened to ban members who violated this rule.

His last post on the matter I recall was



I ordered from Croatia. Not sure if i can post price on here.

I appreciated that you did not provide the additional information, but I don't appreciate the private messages that others are sending back and forth on the forum to bypass the rules.

Guys please do not put me or my company into jepordy for more legal action. If I have to ban people again I will

Attorneys are just too expensive

Now in the last little while I have noticed that the LI team is allowed to operate with relative impunity to the forum rules as they are laid out.

By allowed I dont mean officially I mean that posts violating this rule go unmoderated. Members who sell LI's Are not banned, and members who publicly and privately tell people where to get them are not cautioned let alone banned.

I noticed that the LI UK rep has joined up and the only contributions i have seen him make to the forum in my opinion, would constitute only as being spam. He posts info to his online LI sales site and talks about his ordering and payment policies here. He also went so far as to put a direct link to his online store in his forum signature here. (hes removed it after I mentioned that I thought it may be against the forum rules to do so)

My question isnt so much of a question as it is an observation. And that is that there appears to be a double standard here on the forum which I found was a bit curious.

We have seen members banned from these forums for less than what LI is getting away with on the forums here and I am curious as to why this is allowed?

Now After this morning I do have a personal beef with Ivan after being insulted by him but I do not have anything against him selling his jammers out of the forums here. So let me state that clearly.

As he requested I should start a new thread and we can discuss the issues at hand here.

So am I missing something here or is there some kind of double standard with LI on the forums in comparison to other jammers like LPP and if so why?

Or are we now able to discuss LPP and AL as freely as we do LI and not worry about getting banned?

Im just a bit confused.

Whats the official RD.net position on this?

Thanks

Noory

[noTe]

Dude, no one from LI has posted any links or information on how to buy it from the United States. Did you maybe think that the jammer is legal in the UK?

Also, some random member of the message board makes a topic about buying it and you start getting pissed. It's not LI's fault.

People all the time PM me asking me where to buy it and I just tell them to use google. I don't see where there is any issue. The US distributor rarely even posts on here because of Roy's rules of LI & the US.

[noorudeenshakur]

Dude, no one from LI has posted any links or information on how to buy it from the United States. Did you maybe think that the jammer is legal in the UK?

Also, some random member of the message board makes a topic about buying it and you start getting pissed. It's not LI's fault.

People all the time PM me asking me where to buy it and I just tell them to use google. I don't see where there is any issue.

No you are wrong, the LI rep put the link to his online store in his forum signature. Its just that its removed now and he wasnt banned or warned that I know of for doing so.

Further being only a salesman for LI on the forums and not any kind of contributing member here holding him to the same forum rules that we held the LPP and AL guys to he should have been banned already. Just look at the low quality of his posts...

http://www.radardetector.net/search.php?search_author=LI+UK

If he was a LPP or AL rep pimpin like that in here he would have been banned already.

Secondly I am not pissed. I am confused.

Back in the day LPP used many forum shills to pimp for them in the forums when in fact it was just 1 or 2 people pretending to be many members. I was VERY critical of this and if you read my posts back in the day you can see that.

Anyhow, all those posts from LPP shills were moderated and deleted QUICKLY and the accounts used to make them were banned if you can recall, where as none of this happens with LI as of date.

Heck a member here tired to see his LPP dual head a few days ago and the message was deleted in less than 20 mins by a staff member.

So to clear this up, Im not pissed.

I have nothing against LI selling their jammers on the forum, just as I had nothing against the LPP guys who were doing it in the past.

Im just confused why LPP guys were banned and strongly cautioned where as LI seems to have a green light to operate on the low low.

That is all.

Its nothing against new members, old members, LI or LPP I just wanted an answer from RD.net staff about it.

[LI UK]

noorudeenshakur - Thank you for advising that we should be banned from this forum and offer no useful information whatsoever other than promoting our company.

When you started work (if you have ever worked that is - you seem to have plenty of time on you're hands) - How long was it before you gained sufficient knowledge within your chosen trade to comment and advise on it publicly?. As you know the sales of the LI in the UK is a new venture for us, Laser parking aids are legal in the UK and we are currently on a learning curve. When we have knowledge we feel will be beneficial to this community we will share it.

The sig was removed after you're previous post about it, we have no intention of upsetting forum rules.

A sig. is also no longer required to locate us. Simple search terms entered on Google directs potential customers to us.

Dave

[noorudeenshakur]

noorudeenshakur - Thank you for advising that we should be banned from this forum and offer no useful information whatsoever other than promoting our company.

When you started work (if you have ever worked that is - you seem to have plenty of time on you're hands) - How long was it before you gained sufficient knowledge within your chosen trade to comment and advise on it publicly?. As you know the sales of the LI in the UK is a new venture for us, Laser parking aids are legal in the UK and we are currently on a learning curve. When we have knowledge we feel will be beneficial to this community we will share it.

The sig was removed after you're previous post about it, we have no intention of upsetting forum rules.

A sig. is also no longer required to locate us. Simple search terms entered on Google directs potential customers to us.

Dave

Amigo this isnt about you only.

Your a new member you arent expected to know all the rules right away which is why I pointed out the link in your signature and advised you that it was against forum rules to do this.

I dont fault you for trying to make money. And I dont want to see you get banned hence my gentle reminder of the forum rules to you in that other thread.

Secondly, please dont insult me.

Unlike you I have never brought my business affairs into this forum for personal gain.

Also for the record we are fortunate enough that we havent advertised our services for over 10 years. We do all our business by word of mouth and Google rank.

Lastly, with regards to what you have of value to contribute to these forums, I am only judging you based on your 8 posts.

Which one would you care to highlight that you consider helpful information that you have contributed to the community here that was not marketing driven?

Exactly None.

My point is that in the past posts like the ones you made were deleted quickly and members like yourself were banned.

Again this is not about members getting banned. I dont want to see anyone get banned. I have no problems with LI selling their jammers here.

Please read my posts above again if you think that is what this is about because it is not.

Edit:

Just wanted to add that I have been wrong about people in the past so dont take it too personally please.

member IRCMUSA comes to mind.

I was very hard on him when he arrived. We did settle our differences like gentleman privately and I can admit I was wrong by judging him prematurely.

He has contributed much valuable information to the forum and raised the bar with his IR jamming tests.

With that said I admit I may be wrong about you and do hope to see you contribute to the community here, in a similar fashion... but I am skeptical about your motives for joining this forum and will remain so until you prove differently why you are here.

[thestaton]

I think you make many valid and well thought out points shakur. The problem lies with Blinder & Veil. They like to enforce their patents and points of view on customers and not companies. They would rather use scare tactics against the customer. Why? They can't update their product to keep up, so they do the next best thing, bring the community down to lawyers. That is why Roy had to force his hand on a few users because of ensuing litigation.

So when you log on to rd.net you have to realize Roy sells both of these products. He does not sell LPP or LI although I have no doubt he'd love to, Roy is a very smart / savvy business man, and if the time comes when he could sell either one of them I have no doubt he'd be all for it.

As per then & now.

Then, Blinder & Veil had control of the board as administrators. So if they didn't like someone they where just banning them. So if a user came on the board they had a good chance of getting the axe.

Now, the majority of the forum is controlled by forum members and not manufacturers. I hope the best for LPP & LI. They are both revolutionizing / updating their products and they have excellent customer service.

[rsatmans]

Just my 2 cents but every member here can contribute knowledge even if they sell the product themselves. I'm not saying publicly promoting your product is the best, but i haven't seen that being done. Also if you read the post that you quoted me from roy stated that this was being done in PM's and he cannot view "private" messages. I think the lpp situtation was a little different if i remember correctly their was a group that had a hidden agenda raving about how good it was then selling it.

[IRCMUSA]

Just my 2 cents but every member here can contribute knowledge even if they sell the product themselves. I'm not saying publicly promoting your product is the best, but i haven't seen that being done. Also if you read the post that you quoted me from roy stated that this was being done in PM's and he cannot view "private" messages. I think the lpp situtation was a little different if i remember correctly their was a group that had a hidden agenda raving about how good it was then selling it.

was that me maybe?

[rsatmans]

Just my 2 cents but every member here can contribute knowledge even if they sell the product themselves. I'm not saying publicly promoting your product is the best, but i haven't seen that being done. Also if you read the post that you quoted me from roy stated that this was being done in PM's and he cannot view "private" messages. I think the lpp situtation was a little different if i remember correctly their was a group that had a hidden agenda raving about how good it was then selling it.

was that me maybe?

No, that wasn't about you. I think that IRCMUSA is a great member of the community. He has brought knowledge and great videos for us all to learn from. after all isn't that the point of this forum to learn more about the products we love, by sharing each others insight. I do not think that selling a product automatically compromises someones integrity.

[IRCMUSA]

Well cool here come some more shills..

I have a forum out there that people can join and talk about what ever they want it’s a "Disneyland" for guys like us. But there are no members and I think it would be wrong to advertise it you will just have to find it! :D
It’s been stagnate since I built it back in July or August.

I made it for this purpose that people wouldn’t have to get banned from a forum.

I went with the name IRCM because it was a military term for
Infrared countermeasures in electronic warfare.

[nomad]

Just to be clear...I posted the LI UK site info because I found it and that's all (and I'm 100% shill free). I've just puchased from Cheetah, so won't buy LI until Cheetah come up with a cable (and GOL has tested the retail version)

The LIUK guy does come across as a bit of a "Drivesmart Neil" and the associate companies he has aren't exactly well received on the net, but the guy is a businessman at the end of the day.

To be honest, I thought the site would turn out to be owned by Charles CC. One minute showing off this new shiny LI's and the next an LI UK site. Things that make you go mmmmm, but it turned out that 2+2=5.

There is probably a "deep shill" in here someplace as that site was obviously well aware of this forum as it didn't take them long to dive on once some patsy (me) pointed out it was there.

I've also wondered why there hasn't been more moderation of this issue, but that's beyond me. I'm only interested in not getting caught speeding.

[charles charlie charles]

To be honest, I thought the site would turn out to be owned by Charles CC. One minute showing off this new shiny LI's and the next an LI UK site. Things that make you go mmmmm, but it turned out that 2+2=5.


Er more like 2+2= 12,568,968 !!

The level of paranoia and suspicion on this board continues to amaze me.

Not sure why you would think that if you'd bothered to read any of the crap posted in my direction by the LI team and others.

I've been called an LPP head and now a LI supplier in less than a couple of weeks!

[happya$$]

To be honest, I thought the site would turn out to be owned by Charles CC. One minute showing off this new shiny LI's and the next an LI UK site. Things that make you go mmmmm, but it turned out that 2+2=5.


Er more like 2+2= 12,568,968 !!

The level of paranoia and suspicion on this board continues to amaze me.

Not sure why you would think that if you'd bothered to read any of the crap posted in my direction by the LI team and others.

I've been called an LPP head and now a LI supplier in less than a couple of weeks!

Yeah same with GOL whichever products do well in our tests people like to call us out on those products like we are bought off or something :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[sciblades]

Personally i think noorudeenshakur, is freaking out Just because ivan said that his product was better does not mean you have to rant and rave about how things were in the old days.

LI is a great product, so was LPP in its day (was inbetween cars so i didn't buy one)

I think if roy thought that LI people were that bad he would have banned them by now.

can't we all just get along? 8)

[Toronto-radar-chopper]

He is just bringing up a valid point and it seems many people do not want this issue brought up. Maybe he will get banned for having a brain and using it.

The issue is not LI, LPP or AL and whoever is the best or what not.

The issue is why does LI get so much freedom and LPP reps got booted and had to start there own forum? It sucks from my views of it.

I'm sure there was more to the storey then we all know. BTW, you don't buy a LI in North America, you "donate money to the science involved and get to become a beta tester." Not sure when we will have a "production unit" as they are selling a diode jammer that I think violates US patents.

Still the best jammer on the market just need to see if it will pass the test of time.

My 2 cents anyways.

[Toronto-radar-chopper]

Further, maybe LI shares some of it profits with Blinder, etc to turn a blind eye....

This is business and most of us don't know what shady deals take place.

Just found out the tow truck driver who picked up my wife car was gonna get a $3000 kickback from the body shop for the $15K repair estimate. I had to suck it up and cough up 2K for the release (tow, storage fees, estimate) and take it to a more upfront body shop who will give me $1500 cash back.

[TSi+WRX]

The level of paranoia and suspicion on this board continues to amaze me.

Not sure why you would think that if you'd bothered to read any of the crap posted in my direction by the LI team and others.

I've been called an LPP head and now a LI supplier in less than a couple of weeks!

- and -



Yeah same with GOL whichever products do well in our tests people like to call us out on those products like we are bought off or something :lol:

Seriously! :shock: :roll:

I honestly come to these Forums, half the time, for the drama.

People are always getting banned, threatening to leave (and leaving a sob story in their wake), accusations made and then apologies rendered - it makes for a great Soap!

:lol:

So now that I've also got 3 LPP heads (with 2 control boxes) and an LI-dual on-the-way from Elvis (and setting aside funds for two more heads), I wonder what people are gonna start calling me, too?

:lol:

[midd]

I will call you either rich or deeply in debt for buying all that gear!!!

[nomad]

To be honest, I thought the site would turn out to be owned by Charles CC. One minute showing off this new shiny LI's and the next an LI UK site. Things that make you go mmmmm, but it turned out that 2+2=5.


Er more like 2+2= 12,568,968 !!

The level of paranoia and suspicion on this board continues to amaze me.

Not sure why you would think that if you'd bothered to read any of the crap posted in my direction by the LI team and others.

I've been called an LPP head and now a LI supplier in less than a couple of weeks!

It just flitted across the scraggy thing called my brain for a couple of mins and was posted in jest to show how all things gets screwed up.
Other paranoia that flitted across at the same time was that maybe the LI UK site was a front for the cops. You buy then 2 weeks later they come round to see your installation!! :P Same thing applies to testing get togethers. 20 jammer fitted cars in the same location, very tasty for the monthly stats. See, pure paranoia from a fevered mind. Any offence given, then many apologies proferred.

[charles charlie charles]

Any offence given, then many apologies proferred.

no apologies needed.

I was just pointing out how funny this place has become.

I myself have been guilty several times of putting 2 and 2 together badly around here. I'm just amused that the big finger of suspicion has been pointed at me more than once recently!

[TSi+WRX]

I will call you either rich or deeply in debt for buying all that gear!!!

:lol:

I'm certainly not rich - but also, as a "cash only" kind of guy when it comes to my hobbies ( it's the only way I can keep myself out of trouble :oops: ), I'm also debt-free. :D

----



I was just pointing out how funny this place has become.


That was my intent, too. I offer my apologies to anyone who may have been offended or slighted by my post above, it wasn't intended that way at all.

Certainly, I don't feel good, at all, about the way things have turned-out in this particular community (and seemingly continues to progress in this manner), but in this thread of itself, personally, I don't find anything bad at all.

[lukenosewalker]

So now that I've also got 3 LPP heads (with 2 control boxes) and an LI-dual on-the-way from Elvis (and setting aside funds for two more heads), I wonder what people are gonna start calling me, too?
:lol:
Wow! :shock: That's some protection. I think the question now is where in the world are you going to stick all those things on your car? Rear: dual lpp + rear shifter, front: Dual LI + Single LPP, Side protection: rest of the shifters... hey, maybe they'll start targeting to the side and you'll be covered!! :D

[piratebay]

So now that I've also got 3 LPP heads (with 2 control boxes) and an LI-dual on-the-way from Elvis (and setting aside funds for two more heads), I wonder what people are gonna start calling me, too?
:lol:
Wow! :shock: That's some protection. I think the question now is where in the world are you going to stick all those things on your car? Rear: dual lpp + rear shifter, front: Dual LI + Single LPP, Side protection: rest of the shifters... hey, maybe they'll start targeting to the side and you'll be covered!! :D

If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

[thestaton]

I've provided the answer to end the speculation. There is no giant conspiracy, it's about money. LPP cost Veil & Blinder money, they ran the board they chose who got the boot.

[lukenosewalker]

I've provided the answer to end the speculation. There is no giant conspiracy, it's about money. LPP cost Veil & Blinder money, they ran the board they chose who got the boot.
Isn't the LI costing Veil and Blinder money? Or are the parties involved less interested in this forum or exhibit less control/influence on the forum as compared to before?

[TSi+WRX]

If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

Is this confirmed data, though?

RacerX's vehicle is chocked-full of countermeasures - both front and rear, yet, there's no problems. Granted, his vehicles have rather large surface-area, and thus allow for more physical spacing between the jammer heads, which may allow them to "play better" with each other.

However, happya$$'s much smaller vehicle is also fitted with an array of countermeasures. No problems there, either.

It's already widely known that the current-market LED-based jammers - the Blinder (M20/40) and Bel/Escort products - in-combination with the current diode-based jammers (AL/LPP, and also including the currently "near defunct" Lidatek LE-30), work exceptionally well together, conferring synergistic protection. More than a handful of us run such setups on our vehicles, and quite a few have been quantitatively tested - enough to know that the synergy does exist and is true.

Certainly, it'll be necessary to test if cross-talk can happen, but so far, there has only been a lot of "hey, that might happen" kind of talk, without any physical proof of this issue actually popping up.

Even Ivan has cited, directly, in this thread:

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=28569&highlight=jammers+together

- that the only foreseeable worry is that the combination of jammers (even without the use of "brute-force" jammers, such as the defunct LE-10, within the combination) *may* throw up jam-codes.

Is this particular issue concerning? Certainly - but it's more-so to those who live in areas where jam-codes would mean more legal worries, and, at least at the present time, that's not nearly as big of a concern to me - and certainly also not the issue at-question in your post above.

Again, is there quantitative evidence - or even ancillary tales - to support your suggestion, so far? I believe that the answer is no (to-date, the only documented case of such interference from jammer cross-talk has been LOPSL's test of a twin set of Laser Mimics, owned by JTW - but in this case, the product itself is questionable; RacerX's original test of combining both a ZR3 and Blinder setup proved to be very successful, with no cross-talk [ ref: http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=8524&highlight=jammers+together ]) - but then again, to err on the side of caution, yes, I do think that some testing is indeed needed. :)

Regardless, one other such "hey, that might happen" type of assertion, when the diode-based jammers that also serve as part-time "parking-aids" were first becoming popular was whether they would set off more laser-sensitive detectors, such as the V1. So far, that has not proven to be the case, either, and the data there is quantitative.

[polakatl]

I've provided the answer to end the speculation. There is no giant conspiracy, it's about money. LPP cost Veil & Blinder money, they ran the board they chose who got the boot.

thats what I got out of all of this. Higher authorities put pressure on Roy to stop LPP and AL talk. If there is no beef with LI then there is no reason to moderate talk about it. <------- This is all just my reasoning.

[TSi+WRX]

I think the question now is where in the world are you going to stick all those things on your car? Rear: dual lpp + rear shifter, front: Dual LI + Single LPP, Side protection: rest of the shifters... hey, maybe they'll start targeting to the side and you'll be covered!! :D

Indeed, spacial considerations is a bit issue, with the rather small vehicle that I've got (BL/BP-chassis, 2005, Subaru Legacy sedan).

Currently, my LPP heads sit to either side of my front plate for preferential center-mass protection (with noted compromise to side-angle PTs at closer ranges), flanked by a set of ZR3s (angled slightly up and outward, to effect best detection of off-axis shots [since these units have compromised jamming ability anyway, I thought it would be best to simply optimize their already known-to-be-better-than-decent capabilities as laser *detectors*]).

The revised setup will have the front LIs taking the spot of the ZR3s, with the LI heads mounted conventionally (parallel/level-to-roadway and straight-ahead), which should in-turn optimize their capability as my primary jammer, while relegating the LPPs to essentially "backup" duty specific to center-mass. I will then slave the ZR3s to the underside of the LIs, since I will have run out of effective horizontal-plane in my lower grill area.

Once I have replenished my funds for the rear heads, they will be placed as wide as possible on my plate recess. At this time, I am not sure if I will then keep the rear LPP head that I have now, still there, for redundancy at center-mass, or if I will simply dis-install that particular unit and move it, along with its control-box, to my wife's WRX as frontal-protection for that vehicle. I will, however, keep my rear ZR3 head there, in-situ. I like that, tactically, I can easily visualize the location of the incoming LIDAR threat on my radar detector.

Besides, de-installation/de-modding is about the least fun thing in the world!!! :lol:

[thestaton]

I've provided the answer to end the speculation. There is no giant conspiracy, it's about money. LPP cost Veil & Blinder money, they ran the board they chose who got the boot.
Isn't the LI costing Veil and Blinder money? Or are the parties involved less interested in this forum or exhibit less control/influence on the forum as compared to before?

I would think so, but Blinder & Veil don't run the forum any more. They made their own forum & now they compete against Roy.

[piratebay]

If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

Is this confirmed data, though?

RacerX's vehicle is chocked-full of countermeasures - both front and rear, yet, there's no problems. Granted, his vehicles have rather large surface-area, and thus allow for more physical spacing between the jammer heads, which may allow them to "play better" with each other.

However, happya$$'s much smaller vehicle is also fitted with an array of countermeasures. No problems there, either.

It's already widely known that the current-market LED-based jammers - the Blinder (M20/40) and Bel/Escort products - in-combination with the current diode-based jammers (AL/LPP, and also including the currently "near defunct" Lidatek LE-30), work exceptionally well together, conferring synergistic protection. More than a handful of us run such setups on our vehicles, and quite a few have been quantitatively tested - enough to know that the synergy does exist and is true.

Certainly, it'll be necessary to test if cross-talk can happen, but so far, there has only been a lot of "hey, that might happen" kind of talk, without any physical proof of this issue actually popping up.

Even Ivan has cited, directly, in this thread:

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=28569&highlight=jammers+together

- that the only foreseeable worry is that the combination of jammers (even without the use of "brute-force" jammers, such as the defunct LE-10, within the combination) *may* throw up jam-codes.

Is this particular issue concerning? Certainly - but it's more-so to those who live in areas where jam-codes would mean more legal worries, and, at least at the present time, that's not nearly as big of a concern to me - and certainly also not the issue at-question in your post above.

Again, is there quantitative evidence - or even ancillary tales - to support your suggestion, so far? I believe that the answer is no (to-date, the only documented case of such interference from jammer cross-talk has been LOPSL's test of a twin set of Laser Mimics, owned by JTW - but in this case, the product itself is questionable; RacerX's original test of combining both a ZR3 and Blinder setup proved to be very successful, with no cross-talk [ ref: http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=8524&highlight=jammers+together ]) - but then again, to err on the side of caution, yes, I do think that some testing is indeed needed. :)

Regardless, one other such "hey, that might happen" type of assertion, when the diode-based jammers that also serve as part-time "parking-aids" were first becoming popular was whether they would set off more laser-sensitive detectors, such as the V1. So far, that has not proven to be the case, either, and the data there is quantitative.

Have you not watched any of RacerX's static testing? He made a video sensitivity test where you could see the IR from the jammers side by side. The jammers were close and soon began to set themselves off, well past the time the gun stopped firing.

Your evidence is with RacerX. Follow the rabbit.

[happya$$]

So now that I've also got 3 LPP heads (with 2 control boxes) and an LI-dual on-the-way from Elvis (and setting aside funds for two more heads), I wonder what people are gonna start calling me, too?
:lol:
Wow! :shock: That's some protection. I think the question now is where in the world are you going to stick all those things on your car? Rear: dual lpp + rear shifter, front: Dual LI + Single LPP, Side protection: rest of the shifters... hey, maybe they'll start targeting to the side and you'll be covered!! :D

If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

Hell no you better recognize my stealthness

[charles charlie charles]

Getting a little bit back on topic.....


Maybe the lack of moderation says buckets about the position of LI at the moment.....

[TSi+WRX]

Have you not watched any of RacerX's static testing? He made a video sensitivity test where you could see the IR from the jammers side by side. The jammers were close and soon began to set themselves off, well past the time the gun stopped firing.


Missed that one - please link.

I've searched his past posts extensively ( as well as through his video archives on SpeedCheetah - although, apparently, by no means specifically enough :oops: ), and the only documentation of any kind of cross-talk interference is in a post where he described a situation in which he'd get too close to a more reflective vehicle in traffic, and having the parking-assist feature of the AL setting off the LE-10. No mention was made of potential cross-talk inducing early PTs, and data on his own vehicle - using again multiple LED-based jammers alone as well as LED-based jammers in-conjunction with laser diode-based jammers - shows synergistic protection.

It was my understanding that you were specifically warning of potential PT issues as a result of such cross-talk interference, not the jammers/detectors setting themselves off.

[charles charlie charles]

TSi+WRX, my friend your arguments are as always well researched and thought out.

My personal thoughts about multi-system jamming are more along the lines of (potentially) adding the risk of triggering jamming error codes on those lidar threats equipped with such detection.

Interestingly I have yet to see any videos showing testing of multiple jammers on a single vehicle.

IMHO the risk, if any, of one jammer setting of another is seriously minimal. Otherwise running 2 or more heads of say an LPP setup would constantly trigger the parking sensor element of that system. Having run 3 heads of 2 cboxes without issue, I do really feel this risk is considerably minimal.

[piratebay]

So now that I've also got 3 LPP heads (with 2 control boxes) and an LI-dual on-the-way from Elvis (and setting aside funds for two more heads), I wonder what people are gonna start calling me, too?
:lol:
Wow! :shock: That's some protection. I think the question now is where in the world are you going to stick all those things on your car? Rear: dual lpp + rear shifter, front: Dual LI + Single LPP, Side protection: rest of the shifters... hey, maybe they'll start targeting to the side and you'll be covered!! :D

If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

Hell no you better recognize my stealthness

I didn't lose an NFL bet ;-) Speaking of which I'm #1 in my league with fantasy football. I hope Tom Brady ****s up this weekend.

[piratebay]

Have you not watched any of RacerX's static testing? He made a video sensitivity test where you could see the IR from the jammers side by side. The jammers were close and soon began to set themselves off, well past the time the gun stopped firing.


Missed that one - please link.

I've searched his past posts extensively ( as well as through his video archives on SpeedCheetah - although, apparently, by no means specifically enough :oops: ), and the only documentation of any kind of cross-talk interference is in a post where he described a situation in which he'd get too close to a more reflective vehicle in traffic, and having the parking-assist feature of the AL setting off the LE-10. No mention was made of potential cross-talk inducing early PTs, and data on his own vehicle - using again multiple LED-based jammers alone as well as LED-based jammers in-conjunction with laser diode-based jammers - shows synergistic protection.

It was my understanding that you were specifically warning of potential PT issues as a result of such cross-talk interference, not the jammers/detectors setting themselves off.

It's one of his latest vids. Don is in his garage with the lights turned off. The jammers are sitting on his work bench.

RacerX, can you chime in and give us the link again?

[RacerX]

sorry it took so long to reply. been at SEMA all week.:)
anyway, here's the thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=315205&highlight=#315205


here's the link to the video:
IR combo (http://www.donspc.com/vidpics/IRcombo.wmv)

Oh, and as purely an afterthought, everyone should just ignore happywannabe, the only way he can get anyone besides himself to say he is even close to true stealth, is to win a bet and force someone to post it in their signature. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[happya$$]

sorry it took so long to reply. been at SEMA all week.:)
anyway, here's the thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=315205&highlight=#315205


here's the link to the video:
IR combo (http://www.donspc.com/vidpics/IRcombo.wmv)

Oh, and as purely an afterthought, everyone should just ignore happywannabe, the only way he can get anyone besides himself to say he is even close to true stealth, is to win a bet and force someone to post it in their signature. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh you know the truth boy

[TSi+WRX]

TSi+WRX, my friend your arguments are as always well researched and thought out.

^ As always, bro, you think way too highly of me. :oops: I'm just a beginner here, and trying to learn my way. Thus, a bit of "homework" only serves me right. :)



My personal thoughts about multi-system jamming are more along the lines of (potentially) adding the risk of triggering jamming error codes on those lidar threats equipped with such detection.

Precisely.

As I cited in my first reply to piratebay, this issue was - and remains - a highlighted concern for those who may choose to run more than one system (or more than one control-box, as in your case), in an area where triggering jamming-codes could spell significant trouble. I think that even now, Ivan highlights this as a potential concern, and one that he still cannot predict.

---


[It's one of his latest vids. Don is in his garage with the lights turned off. The jammers are sitting on his work bench.

RacerX, can you chime in and give us the link again?


sorry it took so long to reply. been at SEMA all week.:)
anyway, here's the thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=315205&highlight=#315205

here's the link to the video:
IR combo (http://www.donspc.com/vidpics/IRcombo.wmv)

SEMA would be just way too much fun. :D Thanks for getting back to this, though, RacerX ! :)

I actually did view that video (comments at around the 6:33 time mark and again near the 7:20 mark, correct?), and what I still don't think is clarified is that my point of contention is that there's no quantitative proof that there's any kind of cross-talk being produced that would be detrimental to the performance of the known jammer "combos," as you suggested prior, piratebay.

All current evidence - both qualitative and quantitative - suggest that they provide a synergistic effect in terms of protection offered (again, with the sole exception documented by LOPSL, with JTW's Mimics).

piratebay's original post voiced a strong concern - with near certainty - that multiple jammers would likely cause heartache:


If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

-> and is not directly the concern raised by the indicated video.

Yes, the video - as well as at least one of RacerX's past posts, which I had already cited previously - does suggest that cross-talk can effect jammers placed in close proximity: i.e. for one to be triggered via the output of the other; but evidence from all current testing evidence, with the sole exception of what was cited, favors the interpretation that the protection offered is additive.

Certainly, without further testing, this evidence is inconclusive.

RacerX's truck is unique in that it offers a relatively large set of distances between the various heads - yet, this seems to also bear out in a positive manner on happya$$'s much smaller Civic as well as BossMan's Mercedes, both of which utilize various combinations of jammers. But we do lack conclusive quantitative testing (although the latter's Mercedes' evidence was near-quantitative, even if it was only for one [or two?] gun[s]).

Without further, more detailed, testing, I don't think, piratebay, that you can just outright claim that this is something that's dangerous - and that will lead to early PTs.

Current evidence stands contrary to that conclusion, and even the makers of the various jammers (with the exception of the Lidatek crew, who responded negatively to a similar question originally posed by happya$$; but then again, this was later itself disproven as a concern), including Ivan, all seem to think that this will not be an issue.

I'm not suggesting that this kind of negative interaction isn't a worry. I think that yes, it should bear additional quantitative testing. However, I think it is also far from correct to immediately cite such an issue as a highlighted concer, as you did, for all current evidence - both quantitative and qualitative, and from more than just a handful of sources, is to the contrary.

[piratebay]

TSi+WRX, my friend your arguments are as always well researched and thought out.

^ As always, bro, you think way too highly of me. :oops: I'm just a beginner here, and trying to learn my way. Thus, a bit of "homework" only serves me right. :)



My personal thoughts about multi-system jamming are more along the lines of (potentially) adding the risk of triggering jamming error codes on those lidar threats equipped with such detection.

Precisely.

As I cited in my first reply to piratebay, this issue was - and remains - a highlighted concern for those who may choose to run more than one system (or more than one control-box, as in your case), in an area where triggering jamming-codes could spell significant trouble. I think that even now, Ivan highlights this as a potential concern, and one that he still cannot predict.

---


[It's one of his latest vids. Don is in his garage with the lights turned off. The jammers are sitting on his work bench.

RacerX, can you chime in and give us the link again?


sorry it took so long to reply. been at SEMA all week.:)
anyway, here's the thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=315205&highlight=#315205

here's the link to the video:
IR combo (http://www.donspc.com/vidpics/IRcombo.wmv)

SEMA would be just way too much fun. :D Thanks for getting back to this, though, RacerX ! :)

I actually did view that video (comments at around the 6:33 time mark and again near the 7:20 mark, correct?), and what I still don't think is clarified is that my point of contention is that there's no quantitative proof that there's any kind of cross-talk being produced that would be detrimental to the performance of the known jammer "combos," as you suggested prior, piratebay.

All current evidence - both qualitative and quantitative - suggest that they provide a synergistic effect in terms of protection offered (again, with the sole exception documented by LOPSL, with JTW's Mimics).

piratebay's original post voiced a strong concern - with near certainty - that multiple jammers would likely cause heartache:


If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

-> and is not directly the concern raised by the indicated video.

Yes, the video - as well as at least one of RacerX's past posts, which I had already cited previously - does suggest that cross-talk can effect jammers placed in close proximity: i.e. for one to be triggered via the output of the other; but evidence from all current testing evidence, with the sole exception of what was cited, favors the interpretation that the protection offered is additive.

Certainly, without further testing, this evidence is inconclusive.

RacerX's truck is unique in that it offers a relatively large set of distances between the various heads - yet, this seems to also bear out in a positive manner on happya$$'s much smaller Civic as well as BossMan's Mercedes, both of which utilize various combinations of jammers. But we do lack conclusive quantitative testing (although the latter's Mercedes' evidence was near-quantitative, even if it was only for one [or two?] gun[s]).

Without further, more detailed, testing, I don't think, piratebay, that you can just outright claim that this is something that's dangerous - and that will lead to early PTs.

Current evidence stands contrary to that conclusion, and even the makers of the various jammers (with the exception of the Lidatek crew, who responded negatively to a similar question originally posed by happya$$; but then again, this was later itself disproven as a concern), including Ivan, all seem to think that this will not be an issue.

I'm not suggesting that this kind of negative interaction isn't a worry. I think that yes, it should bear additional quantitative testing. However, I think it is also far from correct to immediately cite such an issue as a highlighted concer, as you did, for all current evidence - both quantitative and qualitative, and from more than just a handful of sources, is to the contrary.

There is video evidence of cross talk when jammer heads are close together. I didn't say you could have multiple jammers. I said you shouldn't have them TOOOOOO close together. If you don't think video evidence is enough, what more do you want?

WATCH 6:30 of that video. Both of the jammers continue to set each other off when the gun has been turned off.

You say "this car and that car" don't have problems. Well duh. It's called outside variables. Each car and truck has a different shape. Some people may put jammers in different spots then others, using the same vehicle.

If lab style tests show cross talk when jammers are close together you MAY have a higher chance of a problem. I'm not saying you'll have a problem 100% of the time.

But by all means go ahead and put your jammer heads close together TSI until you get further evidence from the pentagon.

[happya$$]

TSi+WRX, my friend your arguments are as always well researched and thought out.

^ As always, bro, you think way too highly of me. :oops: I'm just a beginner here, and trying to learn my way. Thus, a bit of "homework" only serves me right. :)



My personal thoughts about multi-system jamming are more along the lines of (potentially) adding the risk of triggering jamming error codes on those lidar threats equipped with such detection.

Precisely.

As I cited in my first reply to piratebay, this issue was - and remains - a highlighted concern for those who may choose to run more than one system (or more than one control-box, as in your case), in an area where triggering jamming-codes could spell significant trouble. I think that even now, Ivan highlights this as a potential concern, and one that he still cannot predict.

---


[It's one of his latest vids. Don is in his garage with the lights turned off. The jammers are sitting on his work bench.

RacerX, can you chime in and give us the link again?


sorry it took so long to reply. been at SEMA all week.:)
anyway, here's the thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=315205&highlight=#315205

here's the link to the video:
IR combo (http://www.donspc.com/vidpics/IRcombo.wmv)

SEMA would be just way too much fun. :D Thanks for getting back to this, though, RacerX ! :)

I actually did view that video (comments at around the 6:33 time mark and again near the 7:20 mark, correct?), and what I still don't think is clarified is that my point of contention is that there's no quantitative proof that there's any kind of cross-talk being produced that would be detrimental to the performance of the known jammer "combos," as you suggested prior, piratebay.

All current evidence - both qualitative and quantitative - suggest that they provide a synergistic effect in terms of protection offered (again, with the sole exception documented by LOPSL, with JTW's Mimics).

piratebay's original post voiced a strong concern - with near certainty - that multiple jammers would likely cause heartache:


If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX ;-)

-> and is not directly the concern raised by the indicated video.

Yes, the video - as well as at least one of RacerX's past posts, which I had already cited previously - does suggest that cross-talk can effect jammers placed in close proximity: i.e. for one to be triggered via the output of the other; but evidence from all current testing evidence, with the sole exception of what was cited, favors the interpretation that the protection offered is additive.

Certainly, without further testing, this evidence is inconclusive.

RacerX's truck is unique in that it offers a relatively large set of distances between the various heads - yet, this seems to also bear out in a positive manner on happya$$'s much smaller Civic as well as BossMan's Mercedes, both of which utilize various combinations of jammers. But we do lack conclusive quantitative testing (although the latter's Mercedes' evidence was near-quantitative, even if it was only for one [or two?] gun[s]).

Without further, more detailed, testing, I don't think, piratebay, that you can just outright claim that this is something that's dangerous - and that will lead to early PTs.

Current evidence stands contrary to that conclusion, and even the makers of the various jammers (with the exception of the Lidatek crew, who responded negatively to a similar question originally posed by happya$$; but then again, this was later itself disproven as a concern), including Ivan, all seem to think that this will not be an issue.

I'm not suggesting that this kind of negative interaction isn't a worry. I think that yes, it should bear additional quantitative testing. However, I think it is also far from correct to immediately cite such an issue as a highlighted concer, as you did, for all current evidence - both quantitative and qualitative, and from more than just a handful of sources, is to the contrary.

There is video evidence of cross talk when jammer heads are close together. I didn't say you could have multiple jammers. I said you shouldn't have them TOOOOOO close together. If you don't think video evidence is enough, what more do you want?

WATCH 6:30 of that video. Both of the jammers continue to set each other off when the gun has been turned off.

You say "this car and that car" don't have problems. Well duh. It's called outside variables. Each car and truck has a different shape. Some people may put jammers in different spots then others, using the same vehicle.

If lab style tests show cross talk when jammers are close together you MAY have a higher chance of a problem. I'm not saying you'll have a problem 100% of the time.

But by all means go ahead and put your jammer heads close together TSI until you get further evidence from the pentagon.

piratebay is right about this but knowing I can have JTG every time is a risk that I am willing to take. One of the most lethal combos is a ZR3 and an AL/LPP

[TSi+WRX]

^ Actually, no, he isn't right at all, my good neighbor. :)

Here's the logic of why:

He's right only in that such cross-talk exists, but it's eliciting problems in a totally different manner than he suggests.

He's saying that jamming power/process is affected, lowering performance and causing early PTs - whereas nearly all (with only one noted exception) current quantitative and qualitative evidence suggests the contrary, and that the only cross-talk effect is with respect to "falsing" of nearby units.

It's two completely different issues, and I truly think he's confusing the logic here. One simply does not automatically follow the other, and more specific testing should be brought to bear to see if this is a potential issue - rather than to just outright insist that it is, in defiance of all quantitative and qualitative evidence we all have seen and experienced, so far.

Besides, if he's right, then there's no way you should be getting JTG, particularly since your Civic is so small. Your should have suffered PT's left-and-right.


There is video evidence of cross talk when jammer heads are close together. I didn't say you could have multiple jammers. I said you shouldn't have them TOOOOOO close together. If you don't think video evidence is enough, what more do you want?

WATCH 6:30 of that video. Both of the jammers continue to set each other off when the gun has been turned off.

^ That's exactly what I'm saying - that yes, there's cross-talk in terms of closely placed units to "false-fire," but we currently do NOT have any evidence, either qualitative or quantitative, with the exception of LOPSL/JTW's Mimic testing, that the cross-talk happens under either road testing situations, or that such cross-talk causes interference to compromise protection.

Oh, and BTW, yes, I did watch that video.

If I didn't, why would I have cited the two time-markers, myself, in the immediate previous post?

Please don't insult me, there's no need for that - let's just focus on the issue at-hand.



You say "this car and that car" don't have problems. Well duh. It's called outside variables. Each car and truck has a different shape. Some people may put jammers in different spots then others, using the same vehicle.

I've cited this aspect of the equation repeatedly. "Duh." :roll:

In just about every one of my reply posts to you, I've spoken of the vehicle-to-vehicle difference. Actually, if you searched up my past posts, you'll see that I often cite vehicle-to-vehicle differences, not only in terms of physical size (frontal area), but also with consideration specifically to the varying hard-points (not only including shape, but also paint color/finish, presence/absence of front-plate, passive dressing measures, and even with consideration towards the laser "reflectivity" of both OEM as well as aftermarket trim). This is something I've *always* focused on.

Again, there's no need to insult me - please simply stick to the issue at-hand.



If lab style tests show cross talk when jammers are close together you MAY have a higher chance of a problem. I'm not saying you'll have a problem 100% of the time.

Really? You're not saying that there's going to be a problem 100% of the time?

Am I reading your initial post totally wrong?



If you have too many heads up front you're going to have problems. If the heads are too close they'll interfere with each other and you'll go from JTG to punch through. You can over-do it with jammers, unless you're RacerX

Tell me that doesn't sound like "100%" conviction. :arrow: "If you have too many heads up front, you're going to have problems." That sounds like a conclusive statement to me.....

If you think it *may* cause a problem, then word your posts to sound like you mean. "May," "possible," "potential," "could," or "more testing would be needed," are all acceptable ways to state this line of thought in an accurate manner. Certainly not "you're going to have problems."

And note that RacerX is far from the only member here with multiple jammers on-vehicle who have tested with positive results. His example is just the most comprehensive one - but several other members' "lesser" combos have shown through both qualitative reports as well as quantitative testing to have offered synergistic protective interactions.



But by all means go ahead and put your jammer heads close together TSI until you get further evidence from the pentagon.

I'm simply waiting for more evidence from *anyone*.

So far, all the evidence, both quantitative and qualitative, says that protection is synergistic.

Yes, I agree that the possibility for trouble exists, and my first reply post to you conceeded that this is an area that needs direct pursuit of *specific* testing.

I'm not blind to this, nor am I over-confident about it.

Currently, the only known issues for multiple-jammer setups are (1) cross-talk induced false-firing of units in close proximity under "bench" settings as well as with real-life reflections from the "parking sensor" functions (and even here, so far, this has been elicited much less frequently than we originally thought it would) and (2) the potential to elicit jam-codes.

These issues are known now. These issues have either been borne-out through quantitative testing or via qualitative reports. These issues have been expressed concerns of the well-knowledgeable jammer makers.

piratebay, I've asked you simply for confirming data that protection is compromised in this sense. You have cited in the past that you have access to/own police LIDAR equipment as well as jammers - I'd take even your own testing to be necessary supporting argument for your point of view, if you would submit it.

What you've cited from RacerX is the existence of interference - that one unit which is firing can cause adjacent units to false - but not in the manner that it affects jamming protection.

Two different routes of logic, two different concerns.

[piratebay]

What you've cited from RacerX is the existence of interference - that one unit which is firing can cause adjacent units to false - but not in the manner that it affects jamming protection.

Two different routes of logic, two different concerns.

Lets say you have two different jammer heads so close together that when triggered by a police lidar gun, both units continue to set each other off until one of the jammers is turned off.

Maybe the jammers were set off by a car in front of it, so when the officer targeted the test car the jammers were already firing because of the laser scatter it already detected. If the jammers are already firing they're not PULSE MATCHING the guns pulse rate. They are in essence pulse matching the other jammer next to it.

Does this not make sense to you? Do you not understand how pulse matching affects jamming performance?

[PMoth]

HOLY crap!!!! Or you guys can just remove all the other jammers on your cars and just install the LI and you dont have to worry about falsing or PT or anything. Problem solved. 8)

[thestaton]

HOLY crap!!!! Or you guys can just remove all the other jammers on your cars and just install the LI and you dont have to worry about falsing or PT or anything. Problem solved. 8)

true or a LPP.

[charles charlie charles]

Certainly can.

I had 3 LPP heads running off 2 cboxes at the front and their respective parking sensors didnt set off the other head/heads.

And the 3 heads were relatively close together.

[TSi+WRX]

Lets say you have two different jammer heads so close together that when triggered by a police lidar gun, both units continue to set each other off until one of the jammers is turned off.

^ That is a very plausible scenario. The defeat, however, is just as plausible - a combined kill-switch, which, IMveryHO, is a necessity any time more than one countermeasure is run, simply to facilitate tactical disengagement.

Still, in this case, the separate jammers - from currently existing evidence (again with the exception of the Mimics cited by LOPSL/JTW)- seems to lock on the incoming threat, and thus offer synergistic protection in defeating the incoming threat.

It's what happens after the incoming threat is no longer present that is the question, and is what is seen in the video RacerX made.



Maybe the jammers were set off by a car in front of it, so when the officer targeted the test car the jammers were already firing because of the laser scatter it already detected.

^ This is also plausible, and in my view, is the most valid point you have made so far, piratebay. This also ties-in well with the engagement/disengagement/re-engagement scenario below:



If the jammers are already firing they're not PULSE MATCHING the guns pulse rate. They are in essence pulse matching the other jammer next to it.

Does this not make sense to you? Do you not understand how pulse matching affects jamming performance?

These are both true concerns, however, in the case of incoming LIDAR , the initial response from each jammer that receives the pulse would be to match the incoming threat. I would suspect that this is why in real-world situations, we have yet to see (again with the sole exception of the incidence documented by LOPSL, using JTW's Mimics) such interference causing early PTs.

Based on this scenario, however, the possibility that an enforcer would disengage (upon first noticing that his efforts to obtain a laser reading is being defeated) - thus causing the jammer heads to THEN "adjacent-false" - and then the enforcer engaging again :arrow: now *that* I could see as a possibility to cause concern. In this situation, after the original threat was removed, we simply don't know what the jammers are doing any-more, as they continue, for a time, to "self-false." At this point, the outgoing pulse-rates may indeed be incompatible for jamming the original threat. This is similar to your proposed scenario above, piratebay, in which the jammers first detect and then respond to scatter, then self-false, and is then caused to engage the true threat, in-full.

But again, this has yet to be tested (however, it *should* be tested) - there's no current scenario that truly emulates/simulates this kind of concern.

Yes, RacerX's video shows that the response/self-false continues after the threat has disengaged - but we do not know what's happening, in terms of jamming performance, thereafter. We don't know if all or any of the affected jammers are no longer sufficiently "pulse matching," we don't know what the threat LIDAR sees. We only have half - at best - of the data.

Still, this possibility should not be made out to be a conclusive fact and elicit such warnings as you have stated prior piratebay. It is a POSSIBILITY, it MAY happen, it SHOULD be examined/tested. And that's all that can be said.

What we know now, however, is that all quantitative and qualitative evidence points to the fact that this does *not* happen in real-world situations.

And honestly, piratebay, you've cited in past threads that you own police LIDAR equipment as well as jammers - I would definitely and truly welcome being proven wrong in this respect, since I certainly don't want to eat a ticket. :D


---

PMoth and thestaton - :lol: True, true. But that would be too easy, and heck, y'all know me...I'm a gadget nut when it comes to cars. The more stuff I've got on her, the better! :oops: :lol:

But more seriously....

The other reason why I'd like to run more than one jammer is simply because by all current evidence (again, with the noted singular exception cited above, re: Mimics), it seems that there's more to gain than to lose (and that the only known negative in the "loss" column, now, is that there have been a few documented cases of adjacent units falsing after being elicited by the parking-sensor flashes, reflected off of closely [and here, we're talkin' NASCAR bump-draft close]-spaced traffic).

Take, for example, what's close to my heart - the LPP. It's been my primary protection now for going on a year, but it wasn't until just about 6 months ago, through the GOL tests, that we were made aware of its shortcomings with respect to the Laser Atlanta in "non-Stealth" mode. Surprisingly (and very luckily for me), look at what nicely fills-in that spot - the lowly ZR3. :) [As a side-note, look also how well the ZR3 managed to compliment the LPP, prior to the latter's "100-PPS UL fix."]

I'm a firm believer that yes, "too much of a good thing" does exist. Yes, I would love a 1000 wHP car to daily-drive, but I also know that it's probably going to be a bear to daily-drive her.

piratebay does have a point here. I'm not denying that. What I am trying to put into perspective is that his original assertion and "warning" so far holds no water - not in light of nearly all current quantitative and qualitative evidence and not even by the verbal recommendations or thoughts of respected jammer makers - and that instead of insisting that it is outright going to be a problem, what should have been said is that such a scenario should bear more, and also more specific, testing, in order to reach a proper conclusion.

[Phillip559]

I've never even heard of this guy.

Exactly how many people are "representing" Li in this forum?

Interceptor (Ivan), Interceptor Taiwan, Elvis and also this guy?

[piratebay]

TSI while you're waiting for your scientific data from 20 different sources, I think most people will see two good examples(racerx video and JTW report) of interference and not risk obtaining NEGATIVE qualative, quantitive, quality, quantum physic, tackion speed reports. ....just for the sake of getting data for you to discuss in this forum.

Shield ups. Phazers on. Put your jammer heads close together. I don't care.

[TSi+WRX]

TSI while you're waiting for your scientific data from 20 different sources, I think most people will see two good examples(racerx video and JTW report) of interference and not risk obtaining NEGATIVE qualative, quantitive, quality, quantum physic, tackion speed reports. ....just for the sake of getting data for you to discuss in this forum.

Shield ups. Phazers on. Put your jammer heads close together. I don't care.

:roll: Please do without the insults - is that really necessary for a good discussion?

And you're missing the point - so far, LOPSL/JTW's testing of the Mimics was the sole negative (and in this case, the jammers actually surrounded his front plate on all sides) that's representative of the cross-talk interference scenario that you discuss, i.e. performance.

RacerX's video proves solely that cross-talk interference can occur to cause the jammers to false-fire in a sequential/adjacent manner, but requires that event to first be elicited by a valid LIDAR threat. We have no idea what, at all, is happening in terms of what the LIDAR sees, nor terms of jamming performance.

[ Certainly, the scenarios you've provided in the previous post (as well as the close-to-preceding-vehicle elicited "reflection" falses, which was something that I'd brought-up previously) points out how this kind of "falsing cross-talk" could lead to PT issues, but again, there are questions there that need to be answered as well (which I'd cited in-full), in order to paint a more accurate and complete picture. ]

Aside from these two cases, both of which have very, very specific and crucial data-points missing or un-addressed, we have reports, both quantitative as well as qualitative, from, off the top of my head: RacerX (whose multiple-jammer performance has been documented for all to see, in video form), BossMan (at the SE-regional event) and happya$$ that their jammers have worked well in-unison, offering no noticeable PERFORMANCE concerns from potential cross-talk/interference. Similarly, we have "from the horse's mouth" word, through Ivan, that such concerns do not exist, to the best of his knowledge.

I actually think that most will see that this concern/discussion isn't just about me. It's about anyone who fancies running more than one jammer on their vehicle - either in-combination to offer synergistic support to their primary jammer device (i.e. a ZR3/LPP combo, to cover the "hole" left by the LPP in terms of the LA SpeedLaser3, in "non-Stealth" mode) or to simply serve as backup.

Furthermore, I think that most will also see that currently, there's no known PERFORMANCE related negatives - and that additionally and most importantly, detailed, specific, and controlled quantitative testing is necessary to insure that what we're seeing via the current quantitative (direct testing as well as videos) and qualitative (word-of-mouth reports) data is indeed valid.

I don't need data from 20 different sources.

I just would like data from one - which is why I keep saying that since you've stated in the past that you've got at least one LIDAR gun - a PL3 - and you've got jammers, I'd even consider your own testing, piratebay, to be valid proof, and enough to make me think twice.

So far, there's no direct proof that such PERFORMANCE degrading cross-talk/interference exists outside of the Mimic study (and I think you can see why I put this particular one at-discount, for although I have nothing but the utmost respect for LOPSL, my personal view of JTW is somewhat less rosy, and the Mimics...well, you get the idea there, too).

Meanwhile, there's about a half-dozen qualitative reports that testify to the effectiveness of combined/synergistic jamming, and at least two video documentations, which can serve as quantitative data points, of the same.

[sciblades]

not to get into this but my laser mimic i had on the car i crashed was a pos it died within 3 months and just gave false reports every ten seconds.

but you two keep up the good fight

[TSi+WRX]

^ :)

That's a part of my concern (and part of the concern, also, that LOPSL cited) with regard to the Mimics in the documented case of cross-talk actually affecting jamming performance.

Still, it cannot be totally discounted, as it did happen. :)

[lukenosewalker]

^ :)

That's a part of my concern (and part of the concern, also, that LOPSL cited) with regard to the Mimics in the documented case of cross-talk actually affecting jamming performance.

Still, it cannot be totally discounted, as it did happen. :)
They could have been the only jammer within a 5 mile radius, I'm sure the performance would still suck :lol: :lol:

[TSi+WRX]

Still, it cannot be totally discounted, as it did happen. :)
They could have been the only jammer within a 5 mile radius, I'm sure the performance would still suck :lol: :lol:[/quote]

The specific instance of this cross-talk interference was interesting as, initially, with only two heads, they were able to get JTG when the plate was targeted (and since LOPSL was involved in this test, I actually trust its results as being honest). With the addition of the second set, they got some PTs, mostly at <300 ft.

Indeed, the quality/capability of the jammer itself is certainly called to-question in this case, but still, despite its inconsistencies, it was still an "acceptable" jammer, particularly at the time, and the test result does bear documentation. :)

For me, both sides of the argument have to be properly presented, and I could not just ignore this evidence just because the jammer itself was questionable.

[noorudeenshakur]

Well its been almost a week now and 1300 views for this thread.

There have been many replies and it has digressed off its original message bit.

However, there still is not a single official answer from either Roy, The admins, or LI over the issues i have raised here and elsewhere on the forums.

No one wants to touch it...and that alone speaks volumes.

I guess I have made the point I was trying to now.

Without any doubt, there is a clear double standard for LI vs the other jammers.

Draw your own conclusions as to why...

[jimbonzzz]

Officially, there's nothing prohibiting jammer manufacturers or reps from reading or posting on this forum, in fact it is encouraged, as long as they abide by the forum rules, including the restrictions that Roy has in place regarding the sales or advertising of jammers on the forum. And since he pays the bills, there is no reason why he should subsidize the sales of competing products. We can discuss the features, performance, etc etc of any jammer all we want.

As for the other jammer reps:

-As far as I know, the Antilaser reps are not currently banned from here, they just haven't posted in the recent past.

-The "main" LPP reps were not banned for advertising their jammers for sale, in fact they were banned for violating a different completely unrelated rule, a rule that must be enforced with "zero tolerance" if we want to keep this forum open. Because of that, they will never be let back on here. The subsequent user ID's that were created for the sole purpose of pushing their products were dealt with as the spam that they were.

Perhaps you're being a bit harsh on the LI UK guy? When he joined the forum, maybe he wasn't aware of the retrictions in place regarding advertising or sales of jammers on this forum. I'm sure he's aware of the rules now, and it appears that his intent is to follow them. I don't really see any reason to come down on him with a heavy hand, and evidently none of the other admins do either. It isn't too far fetched to think that someone might not be aware of the rules, in fact it even happens with senior members from time to time, eh? ;)

[happya$$]

When a product like LI comes around that can protect an RV with 4 heads EVERYONE should be excited and talk about it. THe world should talk about it. It should be headline news!