Would Veil work if you sprayed the whole front end?

[sethy]

Steve,

Please. That's an image I could have done without, thank you, please keep my nuts out of it.

PS: Nice SIG.

Veil Guy

LMAO

[TSi+WRX]

Allen,

I am afraid, I don't necessarily agree with the whole distance thing versus time thing.

Because when things are in motion time (to react) is critical.

If PT occurs at say 500ft, if you are at 700 feet when initially targeted and you are traveling at merely 25mph you'll obviously have more time to react to slow down than if you were traveling at say 80mph.

Yes, this is very true - the two factors are intimately related. The faster you go, the more distance you will cover in any given time period, and the less time you will have to react, that is something that will not vary, will not change.

However, jrock speaks SOLELY of -time-, which, depending on the precise engagement circumstances, is an equation which simply will not hold (per my cited examples, prior).

Distance is the crucial part of the equation, including how fast that distance is being covered in closing.

Also your distance analyses fail to account for the following dynamics:

1) At higher speeds (particularly if cosine errors are introduced) it is much more difficult on the laser guns to obtain readings of these faster moving targets and it is also harder for the officer to steadily aim on a specific point at a specific time to get that punch through at the 500ft. (Make repeated back-to-back runs and the varying PTs suggest this).

2) You folks assume the distance of the PT is the absolute PT distance. That may not be the case. In your controlled tests when the first PT is obtained (say 500 feet) that reading was obtained after the lidar gun was continuously aimed at any number or solitary points. Starting at 500 feet as opposed to 1400 or 2000 may well result in a different (potentially lower) PT distance because the laser gun needs to build a brief VTH. That's going to add time (and result in closer distances, potentially).

On a related point, CVR tests were very illuminating (to us) in highlighting something we already knew ourselves. PTs may exist at one distance and not at another. In other words, targeting at a particular target at a particular moment may result in a PT that may only briefly exist. Their tests demonstrated this and the fact that they continued shooting and recording results was extremely valuable to understand the true dynamics going on from one moment to the next in time (and distance).

3) If as some do, the targeting takes place on or from an on or off ramp, increasingly high cosine errors are going to be introduced and that will always favor the driver.

As much as a pain it was to test, testing the old Lidateks that had built-in timers required "testing" to be performed this way, and I think gave a more accurate gauge to how the countermeasure ultimately performed.

Very true. Those are all indeed very valid counterpoints.

It was not, in my analysis/analyses, intended that these points be obscured - rather, my very simple scenarios are only to point out to jrock and others that we cannot just quote "time" as the defining factor, that it is, in the end, a distance concern.

And although, as you've pointed out, there are many other factors involved in "the punchthrough equation," I think that it is better to simply focus on the data as they are presented, rather than to further introduce "advanced" variables into the equation.

The take-home message that I wanted to give to newbies reading this thread is a simple one - that yes, VEIL can save you, and yes, that it can do wonders (I don't know how anyone who reads those decreasing values of PT numbers who is not impressed) - but that dangers still exist, and that we should not view VEIL as a "miracle cure."

Yes, PTs occuring under testing scenarios is elicited in a very different fashion from the real-world, particularly given the way LIDAR tends to be utilized by enforcers, but these figures can still be used to illustrate basic concepts - until, of course, someone is able to think of a better way to truly re-create roadside encounter scenarios in a quantitative fashion.

Of course it's distance, but when in motion, it's time.

Again, yes, in-motion, it is distance-covered-in-time, but the problem remains one of distance, be it the initial engagement range or the distance covered per time elapsed.

Veil shouldn't give anyone a greater sense of security than say having a radar detector or a laser jammer that may or may not be up to the task in any given encounter.

If given a choice of having a vehicle with Veil or no Veil, I'll take the Veil any day with or without a jammer or detector.....having Veil reducing your LCS can't be a bad thing in any event. That's not nebulous or misleading, that's my firm belief.

+1.

For all of the concern about having close-range encounters...if you are speeding and see the officer at 400 feet, you better be hitting the brake regardless....

^ For one of our local traps, it is virtually impossible for the targeted vehicle to slow in time. At initial engagement distances of well less than 500 ft., with a transition from a 50 PSL to 35 that someone who is unfamiliar to the area truly could easily miss, and with the trap sitting completely out-of-sight until the target crests the hill, the math works out to be near-impossible, even with the best production road-car, even with an attentive (albeit not forewarned or otherwise artificially prepped) driver.

It's a nasty, nasty trap!

[Veil Guy]

Allen,

Close range instant-on ambushes are nasty, but I believe, it works both ways.

Yes, it is tough for you to react to them in ambush scenarios, but isn't that also potentially true for the officer, who has to precisely aim at vehicles (particularly ones with countermeasures) with police laser, unlike police radar which can simply be triggered...

Veil Guy

[TSi+WRX]

^ Agreed.

I've always *loved* your tactical analyses. It's always well-balanced.

The locals I speak of above - they take full advantage of the fact that their mobile terminals do not intrude into the front bench space. They nearly lie across the front bench, and utilize the driver's side window frame to steady their shots (their arsenal is one of, befitting their technique, "flat" devices - the ProLite, PL3, and Stalker).

[Eloi]

Yes , this video please me , in fact it is very impressive .

I did not check the price of this tool but it could be
helpfull for your research ,
even you dont publish the results

I just saw a typical Lti ambush in my suburb : 200 feet !

Based on this , I sincerely think that any protection start
with a basic jammer , then you can graft whatever passive
on top , the onion skin philosophy .....cry Leo cry ....bouououou

[Veil Guy]

Eloi,

Glad you found the video helpful, we made, I think, about four or five more using three different vehicles front and back some in the VIS and some in the NIR. You may (if you already haven't done so check them out as well).

One thing we use is something a little bit on the pricey side, an IR spectral analyzer. With such a device even very minute changes or variation can be scientifically compared. They're not cheap they are most effective.

To be candid, Veil G4 is over engineered (we have other applications not related directly to this field) for use on vehicles. We conservatively estimated a 6 month usable life per application and we have exceeded 6 years! per one application. The PTs that are occurring come from other areas of the vehicle not treated.

Like with Steve's vehicle, who would have thought that his parking sticker could hurt him? How about the chrome/silver screws of certain jammer heads? How about the reflection coming from his old lidatek head no longer being used. All of these were surprises to us. I hope it allows you to think a bit outside of the "box."

Veil Guy

[TSi+WRX]

Eloi,

Glad you found the video helpful, we made, I think, about four or five more using three different vehicles front and back some in the VIS and some in the NIR. You may (if you already haven't done so check them out as well).

Also the discussion in the thread, too, brother Eloi.

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...r-veil-g4.html

Like with Steve's vehicle, who would have thought that his parking sticker could hurt him? How about the chrome/silver screws of certain jammer heads? How about the reflection coming from his old lidatek head no longer being used. All of these were surprises to us.

In addition, as I've mentioned in those discussions, it surprised me, too, how various curvatures of the vehicle's skin were such hot-spots.

I hope it allows you to think a bit outside of the "box."

He's one of the most "out of the box" I know, don't you worry!

[Eloi]

'' He's one of the most "out of the box" I know, don't you worry! ''

Thanks Tsi , those words coming from You are velvet to my ego





This is picture of the '' light sponge '' , sure not applicable on car parts ,
nevertheless the idea is there : ir absorbtion is a very complicated affair.

'' But black silicon doesn’t trap only visible light. For reasons that are not fully understood, the material shows gains in absorption across the light spectrum, especially in the infrared range. ''
Source : A "Sponge" for Light | Harvard Magazine May-June 2002