Atlanta Jammerfest 3 Results

[rsatmans]

Hey Fastgt03,

No hard date yet but would love for you to make it. Please direct this discussion to the georgia testers member group.

[category4]

By the beam is tighter i think they a referring to the fact that the TS beam is smaller and does not spread as much as other guns. I forget the exact measurement. That being said if I target the extreme edges of my rear tail light assemblies the LI does no alert to it until I am about 200' from the gun. I don't have that trouble with the PL3, LA, UL, etc. Just the TS due to the smaller beam size.

[rsatmans]

By the beam is tighter i think they a referring to the fact that the TS beam is smaller and does not spread as much as other guns. I forget the exact measurement. That being said if I target the extreme edges of my rear tail light assemblies the LI does no alert to it until I am about 200' from the gun. I don't have that trouble with the PL3, LA, UL, etc. Just the TS due to the smaller beam size.

I believe the quoted figure is 2.5 millirads where other guns are around 3 millirads.

[speed-dreams]

Kinda makes sense why the ZR3 can detect it easily, it has the best beam detection from all jammers in the market...

[MEM-TEK]

My ZR4's detected it easily too. The laser IR receivers in the ZR3's and ZR4's look virtually identical, but I don't know exactly what is "under the hood" since the IR receiver circuitry is covered with an RF shield.

[sdh7711]

Random thought for next test out. Anyone thought of trying a combo with the quad for the LI with two by the HL's/LP as normal, one for the rear LP, and one perhaps center mass by the lower windshield somewhere between the wiper blade arms?

With a rolling course the added front LI sensor might help...maybe only a litlte maybe alot. While only having one on the rear versus two would limit rear coverage how many people really get hit from the rear that often?

Just a wild and crazy thought to throw out there.

[rsatmans]

Random thought for next test out. Anyone thought of trying a combo with the quad for the LI with two by the HL's/LP as normal, one for the rear LP, and one perhaps center mass by the lower windshield somewhere between the wiper blade arms?

With a rolling course the added front LI sensor might help...maybe only a litlte maybe alot. While only having one on the rear versus two would limit rear coverage how many people really get hit from the rear that often?

Just a wild and crazy thought to throw out there.

Interesting thought. Problems I see off hand, no way is 1 head in the rear going to do anything. Also the course is pushing the technical limitations of the jammer with its vertical and horizontal transmission. So adding a extra head leveled and straight won't do much good. Maybe if you tailored it to point at the gun during some the dips, dives, and turns in the course. However, this would not be effective in the real world.

The Georgia testing group has never been about jammer comparisons. You shouldn't look at our testing results and say oh the LI did better than jammmer x on that other car. First it is for its members to gain insight on their specific weak points in order to address them. We publish the results so that other members of the community to be able to see how the countermeasures do on specific vehicles. For instance on a medium sized car with allot of chrome, huge reflectors, and metallic red paint LI does this in the extremest cases.

[Stealth Stalker]

sdn7711, along the lines of your suggestion, I will be adding a third LI head to the front of my set-up soon for testing purposes. I will be turning my outer heads outwards with the curvature of the grille in an attempt to better cover my wrap-around headlights (which are a real weak spot on many newer cars), and utilising the third head to compensate for the loss of centre mass coverage realised by angling the other heads out.

As for simply adding a third head without taking any other adjustive measures, I agree with rsatmans, that it probably wouldn't do anything more than overkill your centre mass coverage. Although, on cars with front plates and a lot of chrome or fog lights, that may sometimes be a good move.

[sdh7711]

Interesting thought. Problems I see off hand, no way is 1 head in the rear going to do anything. Also the course is pushing the technical limitations of the jammer with its vertical and horizontal transmission. So adding a extra head leveled and straight won't do much good. Maybe if you tailored it to point at the gun during some the dips, dives, and turns in the course. However, this would not be effective in the real world.

The Georgia testing group has never been about jammer comparisons. You shouldn't look at our testing results and say oh the LI did better than jammmer x on that other car. First it is for its members to gain insight on their specific weak points in order to address them. We publish the results so that other members of the community to be able to see how the countermeasures do on specific vehicles. For instance on a medium sized car with allot of chrome, huge reflectors, and metallic red paint LI does this in the extremest cases.

The control box is only able to handle 4 heads though correct? cant do a five or six head set up i assume? and didn't mean to single out the LI over the others just many on this thread love it above all others I would say try it with other jammers too.

Just another variable to consider as some people may only run front heads anyways. So if adding a third one drastically improves coverage (hypothetical random assumption) then you may wanna do it.

Could also get real creative and mount two above the hood on the sides and see how much frontal coverage you get. Not to mention that they would probably be at a slight angle increasing angle shot coverage. Maybe see if mounting them behind the windshield does anything too if a high placed head does have some benefits.

Is that starting to get extreme, and the engineer in me going a little bonkers with the idea? YES!!!!!!!!! But i am sure you guys would certainly love another angle to test.

EDIT: Ah Stealth just pretty much beat me to the punch.

[M6D]

Along these lines, I had considered using an Adaptive Headlight drive motor to control a pair of jammer heads. I may have mentioned this before, and decided not to pursue it after our last testing event. I was worried about off axis/vertical angle shots, but less concerned now.

Another thought that just occurred to me would be a tracking system that could pinpoint the source of the gun (if the beam was wide enough to hit multiple sensors) and actuate the jammers to constantly face the threat.

Also, getting a bit further afield, I noticed that I have no visible return when I shine a gun laser into a standard flood light that was turned on. That intrigued me (along the lines of the HID discussion) and wonder if a constant on, VERY "bright" UV emitter might eliminate the need for a pulse computation? I'm sure this has already been tried... Could give massive sunburn to someone you were following in a convertible, I guess.