A new concern for you LPP owners!

[Ford_Focus_05]

OK I dont know if anyone else noticed this but in the JTW video they documented that the buzzer went off for 10.5 secs
http://www.laserjammer.citymax.com/p...ge/3384710.htm

http://www.laserjammerforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=199
OK so in the Go.mouse's new video both times they go off for only 8secs...

http://media.putfile.com/Laser-Pro-P...e-in-Vancouver
On this video he gets hits 2 times and the jammer goes off for 9 secs both times!

Now I cant find it at the moment I think it got trashed with the Back alley
but I remember watching FLYBOY's Video about settinf his LPP off with a remote and it went off for only like 3 secs...

So why the difference? why sometimes 10.5 why sometimes 8 why sometimes 9
and why does Flyboys only go off for 3 secs?

[go.mouse]

It's funny we have more and more of these type of posts now.

FF05, I don't think the audio alert duration is a big deal at all. It's jamming that matters.

[Ford_Focus_05]

I think its a problem...there timer is not consisnant and I think that has to do with the build quality.

Jim I Really cant think of why this would be, electronicly I cant.

[RacerX]

Probably what has happened is it picked up a partial shot, just enough to set the timer in motion, then as it"re-acquires" the shot the buzzer sounds.

a remote is easiest to do this with, especially if it considers the remote to be a "false source".

the reason i know thisis possible is that i was double checking the timer on the Lt 400 with my tester, and i was using my camera to watch the diode fire so i would be sure of the duration.
well i moved it away just enough, that it stopped firing momentarily, but the timer was still going. unfortunately it had an led and no buzzer, so i can't confirm the audio for that jammer.

i suspect something similar is happening here.

best way to test this is get a gun, camera, and test it out.

[amoney]

Well as far as FLYBOY, technically speaking it should not even be going off from a TV remote... as the AntiLaser goes by a look up table... all that we can figure is that FLYBOY demonstated that the AntiLaser pulled a V1, where it thought it processed a possible threat and then simply "Junked" it out.

As far as the 8 vs 10, yeah you may be correct, perhaps build quality, etc etc, but if its 8 or 10, no big deal, the more important point is if it jams.

If you really want go at it, the best thing would be to do a QC test and compare a few AntiLaser and see if there are problematic numbers, then you can really tear into AntiLaser. But that would require testing the same revision and since AntiLaser releases new revisions every few weeks it would be hard to gather a set collection for test, comparing different revisions although basicly the same would still throw the comparative analyses off, and you would still have questions at the end.

Although I do not have any reason to doubt jamming ability as far as QC, but the more I think about it, being able to test you jammer install I think is very, very important... hence the need for a generic jam code.

[cyberblob]

I agree, after my testing with a remote I have noticed it will try to match the output speed of the remote. Then it shutdown after it figures out that it is not in the lookup table. It then alerts with a short beep.

[FLYBOY!!!!!]

Yeah that completely makes sense that it actually works out that its a junk signal and stops jamming/alerting.

Its good to know that the LPP will actually alert to these types of signals because if it alerts to a remote then the way I look at it, it should be pretty good at picking up scattered reflections from a laser bouncing off of other cars ahead.

I'd still like to add a second head to my car to help the jamming effect and when the twin diode AL 8 is released to the public, I will be getting one of those.