Standards and definitions

[Solion]

I am kind of curious if there industry standards as to what JTG, JFG, actually mean.

Also are there standards for testing? given that speed of a vehicle changes the ability of a gun to get a reading should we be testing at a stated min/max speed?

Should we consider time of day, cloudy/sunny, day/night and ambient temp . should all jammers be tested in the same positions on the same car. Should we set target points on the car and with a VISIBLE laser (green or purple for instance) use that mounted to the gun to make sure that the targets are being hit.

Should all guns be mounted to tripods. How level the road is in deg of rise and fall?

Should all tests be recorded through the guns viewfinder. ( a little velcro and my micro cam we can do this AND watch the IR from the gun/transponders)

Should there be a certification of the guns accuracy and operation within factory specifications

Should there be a certification process for the results?

[snoopyc4]

Man, you are loaded with questions. I'll answer some.

given that speed of a vehicle changes the ability of a gun to get a reading should we be testing at a stated min/max speed?

Yes. For our Houston meets, we ask the LJ user to keep the speed of his vehicle between 30-35. A jammer works better the faster the car goes so we want to make it as difficult as we can on the jammer system.

Should we consider time of day, cloudy/sunny, day/night and ambient temp . should all jammers be tested in the same positions on the same car.

I think we should. I've noticed that jammer systems don't do as well when the temperature is high.

Should all guns be mounted to tripods.

Yes. A steady gun is more likely to get a PT than a gun that is shot freehand. Again, we want to make it hard on the jammer systems.

Should all tests be recorded through the guns viewfinder.

No. This takes away from the shooter's aim because the shooter is worried about not only maintaining a stead aim but is also worried about making sure the aiming reticule is in the camera's view.

[Solion]

No. This takes away from the shooter's aim because the shooter is worried about not only maintaining a stead aim but is also worried about making sure the aiming reticule is in the camera's view.

What if I told you we can do it without interfering with the lidar guns view or improve it for the operator.. I have a very neat solution for getting video and ensuring the best gun operations at the same time.

A) mount the color/IR camera in the reticle window directly. the camera I have is only 1 inch by 1 inch square

B) video coming from the camera to a pair of video goggles. No squinting through one eye and I can split the video to a digital recorder on my Lappy.

I have everything here to do it.

[snoopyc4]

If you have some way of doing that, then by all means please do. We'd all love to see your home built jammer in action.

[Stealth Stalker]

I don't see any standards as being particularly useful, because no matter what standards you use, you are still going to have multiple variables.

I think it is sufficient to note that every set-up, every gun, and every shooter are different, regardless of conditions, so you just take it for what it is.

[Solion]

I don't see any standards as being particularly useful, because no matter what standards you use, you are still going to have multiple variables.

I think it is sufficient to note that every set-up, every gun, and every shooter are different, regardless of conditions, so you just take it for what it is.

I disagree. I think that any company that want to hold to "we are the best" should have to prove that in a court of rigorous scientific proof.

Now I don't expect we can within a limited budget get everything we want. However if we set standards to follow for testing we can at least begin to quantify the best performers. Companies like consumer reports does this all the time. while we don't have the same budget, We can begin to tighten up a set of standards.

As it stands we have a very loose system of testing. as in there seems to be questions of outright fraud and refusal to test some jammers by the various groups, some make claims that they are trying to push product. and there is some sort of dispute some of the testers because of conflicts of interest ?

Standards are nice. I like metrics for defining the good , the bad and the "you threw your money away " why in the world we have all these standards of testing for every other electronics item in the world and not this one seems silly.

I really think we should open the debate on transponder testing practices and decide on holding to those standards. All it can do is make companies make better transponders.

[STiMULi]

I don't see any standards as being particularly useful, because no matter what standards you use, you are still going to have multiple variables.

I think it is sufficient to note that every set-up, every gun, and every shooter are different, regardless of conditions, so you just take it for what it is.

I disagree. I think that any company that want to hold to "we are the best" should have to prove that in a court of rigorous scientific proof.

Now I don't expect we can within a limited budget get everything we want. However if we set standards to follow for testing we can at least begin to quantify the best performers. Companies like consumer reports does this all the time. while we don't have the same budget, We can begin to tighten up a set of standards.

As it stands we have a very loose system of testing. as in there seems to be questions of outright fraud and refusal to test some jammers by the various groups, some make claims that they are trying to push product. and there is some sort of dispute some of the testers because of conflicts of interest ?

Standards are nice. I like metrics for defining the good , the bad and the "you threw your money away " why in the world we have all these standards of testing for every other electronics item in the world and not this one seems silly.

I really think we should open the debate on transponder testing practices and decide on holding to those standards. All it can do is make companies make better transponders.

While I agree the standards would be hard to meet as the variables include long distances and weather, time (sunlight) location (angle of the sun at a certain time) and many other variables such as other light interferences.

I think maintaining a level of consistancy at the time of testing is the best way to do it for now. Testing in a tunnel would be great. Where could you find a tunnel long enough for MAX legal citations?

Bueler?

[Stealth Stalker]

Ah, well if we're talking about manufacturer claims, that's a different story. No, there is no standard, but I agree that it would sure be nice if there was. But it still comes back to the "buyer beware" caveat, because again, every set-up is different, and what a product does on my car does not directly co-relate to what it will do on any other car.

As for independent results, the same caveat applies. And using "standards" would only limit our ability to give products a thorough testing.

[Solion]

Ah, well if we're talking about manufacturer claims, that's a different story. No, there is no standard, but I agree that it would sure be nice if there was. But it still comes back to the "buyer beware" caveat, because again, every set-up is different, and what a product does on my car does not directly co-relate to what it will do on any other car.

As for independent results, the same caveat applies. And using "standards" would only limit our ability to give products a thorough testing.

I think however with all the different types of cars out there that the things we can control, we should.

Can we even agree on the definition of JTG/JFG My biggest complaint about most testing is there is no set and definition to even this common claim of gun performance

JTG, is this 2 feet from the gun? 20 feet from the gun? what would be a practical standard to make this claim. Also .. how should we look at offset in this claim. To be honest I want to see a set standard for this because how well your transponder works to protect you from guns, 10 ,20 , 30 deg offset on the side of the road will be compleatly different than aiming right down the middle of the cars bumper.

[ELVATO]

The problem with all this is that it would take a lot of time and money to do all this (more so time).

I know GOL takes 2 days when they do their testing. They are pretty much the closest thing to having a "standard." They test same car, same shooter (I think), same location, same speed, most if not all the guns, and they test a lot of systems. They don't test angle from road. They also aim for both CM and HL

CFL usually take 1 day. We try to test various jammers (not nearly as much as GOL) on the same car. We try to keep the same speed, same shooter (me), and we use pretty much all the guns the US. We also write down all PTs, not just the first one (more on this later). We don't test from various angles from the road.

Another problem I see with keeping a standard is the shooter. Most of the groups already try to "standardize" things by doing at least 2 runs: 1 CM, 1 HL. Though that improves things a little, it's still "lacking."

I'm sure it's happened with other test groups where you'll do a run, and get a high PT... and that'll be the only PT for that car. No matter how much you try, you can't replicate that PT. That's why we write down all PTs. Or, it also happens where the car will be PT with one shooter, and PT city with another.

Also, because of the nature of how lidar works, it would be hard to "standardize" because every car has a different laser profile. Color, amount of chrome, size of headlights, placement of headlights, placement of jammer heads on certain cars (it'd be harder to stealth out a car with headlights that are far away from the grille), among other things (like Veil or no Veil). Way too many variables to test and account for, not including the other variables listed in the previous paragraph.)

Most groups just test, give distance they got of the PT, what car the system was on, where the jammer was installed on that car, and let the readers guess for themselves.

And this is all done by independent groups, manufacturer videos around here don't carry much wait.

Sorry for the long read. I'm sure I'm missed some things...and reiterated what others have said.


EDIT: As far as JTG, technically, it's supposed to be if the car is able to get by without any reading. But, depending on the group/person, many will consider anything sub 100 ft JTG, since at speed, 100 ft passes in a second or less. Also, it'd mean you are right on top of him/her, so you should have adjusted your speed by then. At least that is my take on it.