GOL APR 2006 Results...Am I reading 'em right?

[Suf Daddy]

I'm NOT defending AL here, but their video (black BMW v. GOL 2006; White Jeep W/chrome) isn't EXACTLY an apples to apples comparison.

HOWEVER,
The AL ver 6.5 video is a sales presentation.

We don't know if multiple runs were picked through for the one we saw.

We ALSO don't know if ANY manufacturer did off axis shots like GOL did, JTW did, and I have been talking about. I consider the LIDAR expert "heads" here at RD.net and LJF.com to be thinking out side of the box here.

I think the independent community has pushed the envelope of what's expected BEYOND A JTG. Which until 2006 was considered a straight line video result which pretty much sold nearly everyone when the AL ver 6.5 video came out.

I'd like everyone to THINK BACK to the previous GOL test where the side mirrors HAD to be wrapped to prevent long distance punch throughs......... it seems that issue, which was solved by wrapping a black tee shirt (AFAIK) around the side view mirrors, has resurfaced as "punch through" since the targeting distances off axis have gotten greater.


These tests keep pushing one thing to me.

IMHO, The off set angle is too much for the (basic) design of the divergence of a jammer head.
Espeically when the Jammer TX head is trying of cover an off axis angle (from the direction of vehicle travel)

Is apparent to me that the JAmmer TX head is now trying to cover a side surface (visible because of the off axis aiming of the vehicle) which is behind the jammers' Tx pattern..

SInce LIDAR light is a three beam pattern (LA is not comfirmed yet) its the outer beam pattern which I suspect is getting reflected back from the side mirror, side of the vehicle, or theouter surface edges....

My solution is; extra TX heads to cover these side (off axis) views.
or to paint your vehicle flat matte grey primer.........

I ask this Q:

WAS the distance reading (punch through) and the SPEED reading, consistant with the test vehicles' actual speed?

In otherwords, was the hand-held (and possibly panned/swept) LIDAR reading accurate to the actual test vehicle speed?

If it wasn't.........I'd suggest the offset axis is really amplifying the Sweep and panning which is affecting the ability of the Jammer to cloak or jam a LIDAR gun's reflections...............

and is leading to a criteria for which the jammer head can't provide coverage to....the side of the vehicle..........

In conlcusion, I suspect the envelope of cloaking a reflective surface with Jammer TX light has been defined and the solution is to figure out how to incorporate side protection / coverage in these jammer systems..........

-Suf Daddy, May 2006.

AL units seem to have trouble with PL3 at such angle. It sure can jam when it is straight-on or smaller angle. but 800ft punchthrough is unacceptable at 35ft angle.

800 foot punch throughs is bloody ridiculous. Who wants to spend $700.00 to get punch throughs that high? Dumb.

I started to get skeptical of anti-laser and Gol's and our test(mouse and I) prove my skepticism right.

Anti-laser lied to us in that BMW video no doubt.

JTW

[Suf Daddy]

I'd say things are getting BLURRED together.....

IMHO the AL ver 6.5 video show a JTG and a JFG in a straight line, NO off axis shooting.

So PARAPHRASING:"did they lie" in their video?.... or have our preceptions of the scope of a JTG grown?

Thinking outside of the box.... - Suf Daddy

Does this mean even though AL deceived us with their magical BMW video, still means AL is the top contender, but not best value to performance ratio. Blinder would take this category. Is that about right? Not bad numbers for such a worst case scenario, and no VEIL, and half the price of the AL.

<<<< S N I P >>>>
Anti-laser lied to us in that BMW video no doubt.
JTW

[Mackid343]

I Honestly believe that the results from mouses ProPark are more accurate!!

I say this because The jammer was intentionally sent by AL to be tested...I am sorry but I can not trust that company!! They have decived us all!

I am not saying this because I dont like AL and I am not saying this because I am pro DS!!

I honestly...no BS... I really think that the units are not what you get retail...

The Results are on average 250 ft difference then the results from JTW and Go.mouse...

I hear well going that slow is torture...THAT SHOULD NOT MATTER...IT SHOULD JAM NOT MATTER WHAT SPEED!! AND IT SHOULD BE DESINGED TO JAM FOR AN HOUR!! ALSO the rsults were the same when they were on the highway!!

I honestly think that AL has not done a good job...We as comsumers are finding out nothing is reliable at 35 degrees BUT BLINDER DID GET JTG FOR STEALTH MODE!!

Honestly what I would like to see is a old Blinder withOUT the stealth mode fix and see what happens!!


My biggest issue with AL is that these units are not production...they do not have anyone producing these units they are ALL HAND MADE!!
OK I am sorry but I am not going to pay 500-800 dollars for a hand made unit THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. They said you can upgrade your unit through a USB port...the USB port doesnt work!!

You can not trust these guys...I think the units were not the actual retail units that are made...as shown in the BLIND PURCHASE style testnig of Go.mouse!

GOL needs to start Blind Testing... But thats for the hard work!!


If you want to gamble you money on a hand maid product be my guest!!

SO what do I suggeest Either wait for DS or buy yourself a can of veil, laser sheild andeither Zr3...if its a mid-size car all 3 heads up front... or Blinder M40 for anything bigger!

I say Zr3 first because they do not have the stealth mode fixed! Thats is good for jamming all the other guns...including LA normal mode!

they did have two heads on the jeep vs the one mouse has. i think that these results are accurate and very good and also confirms that one head is not enough for a single vehicle of any size. i think that in the field, you would always have enough time to slow down and would probalby JTG when handheald

[Suf Daddy]

Aren't LAser Jammers designed to give you warning and time to slow down?

So JTG and JFG beyond 200 feet would be ideal, but realistically, just like in football, if you run at the defensive line all day long, your gonna get a punch through once or twice............

-Suf Daddy x's and O's

[crazyVOLVOrob]

When at highway speeds where 99% of my encounters occur @ 65mph you are going 95.333 ft per second

[Mackid343]

i think that a dual head Al7 on the front of a normal sized car with veil and lasershield you will be very well protected...plus is legal for where jammers arent

[JTW]

AL units seem to have trouble with PL3 at such angle. It sure can jam when it is straight-on or smaller angle. but 800ft punchthrough is unacceptable at 35ft angle.

800 foot punch throughs is bloody ridiculous. Who wants to spend $700.00 to get punch throughs that high? Dumb.

I started to get skeptical of anti-laser and Gol's and our test(mouse and I) prove my skepticism right.

Anti-laser lied to us in that BMW video no doubt.

JTW

.

No, on that BMW vehicle they were at no angle, and they targeted the jammer until the end. I believe they have been honest. Anyone that has common sense knows that when you fire on a jammer dead on,. it will do better. I noticed this in their video. (no i have not gotten a free pro park)

Guys they didnt lie to anybody. mislead however-- that could eb a possibility. But ask me this, would you take a pro park or a blinder?

This bashing isnt about whats best anymore, its about having expectations that the DF2 will be jam to gun no matter what. The thought of punch through is un-exceptable. Guys, the thoguht of JTG under any circumstances is exciting, even to me, but coming to the realization of LED jammers is all you need, even with punch throughs can do the job... Come on ppl. Think about what you need.

I still am impressed with anti-laser, heck I am still impressed with blinder. Lets stop bashing, and think about what protection current, and RETAILED units provide us.

Mouse and I did head on shots and it wasn't this magical JTG. Yes they did lie to us.

[HighVoltage]

Im also confused about the comparison to the AL video. I could have sworn I also saw "off-axis" shot, when they showed two vehicles coming towards the camera, one behind the other. Both vehicles on the opposite side of the road relative to the camera. The BMW in the rear had the jammer. As the BMW in the rear passed and overtook the one in the front, the jammer was active and jamming the gun, no punchthrough. I believe that in the video the gun was being held by hand and not on a tripod but it does seem that this footage is misleading when compared to the GOL results. Am I misinterpreting this scenario??

[amoney]

Is anyone else puzzled by the fact that when GOL did the comparison of angles test, that the AntiLaser head on shots were 99% JTG... and when retested at extreme angles just as in the first test, the punch throughs average about at 100 foot! Those are phenominal numbers.

The only thing that I can pick out was that the comparison angle tests it mentions that the officer was targeting the headlights and licensce plate, apparently not as before center of mass shots in the first test.

So if thats the case AntiLaser did not show a bogus video. Just selective video.

[thestaton]

I ask this Q:

WAS the distance reading (punch through) and the SPEED reading, consistant with the test vehicles' actual speed?

The distance & speed where right on the money! The avg speed we travled during testing was around 35mph. The guns where always some where around that number.