"High-Powered" Laser Diode Jammers
Updated: 23 Apr 14, By Veil Guy
- I've been told by a Laser Interceptor rep, that the LIs are "eye safe," and that Radar Roy's article suggesting otherwise, contained inaccuracies.
- Laser Interceptor has come to a settlement with the holder of the US Patent for look-up table laser jammers, Blinder. LI is the first and only company to my knowledge to have actually have done this. As such, I expect to review a model sometime in the future.
Today I received an email marketing blast from Radar Roy concerning his "review" of a product that he markets, called the Laser Interceptor.
Roy touts in his article that the main advantage to the Laser Interceptor over (what is implied to be) lesser-performing and more "conventional" and "lower-powered" LED-based laser jammers—such as those produced by Blinder and Escort—is that the Laser Interceptor employs "high-power" laser-diodes to effectively jam all police laser guns.
While this notion on the surface sounds compelling, if one takes a little time to understand how a police laser gun and modern-day laser jammer works, one would realize that the performance of any given laser jammer is not really just a matter of power, it is a matter of accurate timing. This complex mechanism is described in greater detail by the domestic and international patent holder of the underlying technology, Blinder, who's headquartered in Denmark.
A laser jammer's primary function is to transmit pulses of IR light in a manner which destructively interferes with the pulse-train of the police laser gun that is being triggered. A laser jammer must quickly determine the actual pulse rate being transmitted by the laser gun and then counter with the illumination of its own destructive pulse-train to render the laser gun unable to obtain a speed reading (again, as described in Blinder's patents).
While power certainly can play a role, to a degree, in this mechanism, it is not the overriding force which ultimately determines the overall laser jamming effectiveness.
At some point, using more "illuminating" power does not and will not improve performance as other more important factors come into play. In other words, more is not always better.
Furthermore (and what is not understood by the vast majority of consumers or reviewers of laser jammers): police laser guns use magnifying elements in their transmission and reception sections to significantly amplify their weak transmission signals.
This is extremely important to understand because what this means in reality is that the difference in output of either an array of multiple LEDs or a single laser-diode is to a large degree negated and less relevant to the effectiveness of any given laser jammer, regardless of the mode employed in its design (LED Array or Laser-Diode). The timings and other design-elements (such as beam-divergence) are far more important.
In other words, the hype surrounding "high-power" laser jammers is bogus marketing-speak, used to sell very expensive laser jammers. This process is referred to as manufacturing demand (a MUST SEE video). Another industry that employs this marketing tactic (with impunity) is the bottled water industry.
However, since Radar Roy's review primarily focused on the "high-power" of one particular laser-diode-based laser jammer as being a most important factor, I would like to offer this perspective on laser diodes as an illuminating source of laser jammers as compared to an array of multiple LEDs.
As someone who has zero financial interest/stake in any of these laser jammer companies, for my money, I wouldn't focus on the particulars of the individual components used in the construction of a laser jammer for making a selling (or purchasing) decision.
In the final analysis what matters is the actual performance of the laser jammer in the real-world of everyday driving and not what was used internally to achieve that performance.
Historically, there have been both good performing and poor performing laser jammers of each kind (LED Array and Single Laser-Diode), further demonstrating this point.
Incidentally, the most advanced development of illumination sources today are...LEDs.
They showing up everywhere from the latest designs of flat-panel TVs to automotive lighting and interior lighting for very good reasons—they're inexpensive, very effective illuminators, cool-burning, and provide extreme reliability & longevity while consuming very little power.
The same is true for "Laser"/IR-illuminating LEDs.
"High-Powered" Laser Diode Jammers
Have you ever noticed the internals of a consumer CD or DVD player? If not, examine one. You'll see that its optical reading device is thoroughly protected to not permit direct viewing as a means of protecting one's eyesight. I suspect the power output of that device is quite a bit less than those of devices that are used to illuminate hundreds or thousands of feet away.
I can't help but think of a similar circumstance that Roy was personally involved with which resulted in the pressuring of a certain particular "jammer" manufacturer to take their products off the market.
That company was Rocky Mountain Radar. It was only after of his (and others) relentless lobbying efforts to the FCC about RMR's products, did the FCC finally take notice of the fact that RMR's was flagrantly violating their regulations and hence RMR was subject to very steep fines and other consequences, a company that could be considered by some as a "competitor" to Roy's Radar Busters, at the time.
That's when things changed dramatically for them (and the consumer), which incidentally, was a good thing, not because they were in violation of federal regulations, but because they were completely ineffective in jamming anything, despite years of their wild marketing claims to the contrary.
And this was simply because their little boxes were considered to be potentially interfering with other radio transmissions, a relatively harmless matter as compared to that of the emissions of a "very high-power" laser-diode device which, according to Radar Roy, can present a very real long-term health threat to eye-safety—as he stated in his article, 'irreversible eye damage.'
(What!?! 'Irreversible eye damage...while connected to a power supply', as they would be in general operation?) Let me see, risk versus reward?
- Why wouldn't any company producing or selling such consumer products which, according to Roy, may be in violation of federal regulations/laws/guidelines not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and/or enforcement/financial penalties that RMR and its dealers/distributors ultimately were?
- Wouldn't companies performing professional installations of such devices be subject to OSHA regulations concerning their employee's eye-safety? Particularly when installers will routinely and repeatedly be in very close contact with the laser jamming heads as they perform their installations?
- Why wouldn't the consumer (operator) of such devices not be subject to the very same kinds of legal consequences for knowingly violating specific federal regulations (especially those that have adverse health implications) as someone who would operate, say, an active or passive radar jamming device (which has little or no adverse health implications)?
The fact that these other products are considerably less expensive at doing the very same job—in the real-world—is a nice bonus, especially when one considers our tough economic times.
Happy and Safe Motoring!
Further References:
- Laser safety - Wikipedia
- Laser Eye Safety (OSHA)
- OSHA Eye Safety Standards 29 CFR
- OSHA Eye Protection
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- International Intellectual Property & Litigation
- Domestic & International Intellectual Property & Litigation
Veil Guy
28 comments:
Perhaps your concerns are warranted, but you glossed over the point that the Rocky Mountain Radar jammer simply didn't jam radar, and that was the main reason Radar Roy went after them - the FCC was the weapon that struck the fatal blow since it was also illegal. I suspect it would have been recommended until it was banned if it was actually effective (and there are effective jammers, but they cost a lot more, have higher power, and thus even more illegal).
If I read the laws right, most states make it illegal to put anything over your license plate or headlights including any coating.
The FDA issues regulations and guidelines, but has to take action to actually ban items. Wikipedia says what "Class 1m" is - basically safe if not focused (magnifying glass or otherwise refocused). Given the guidelines I doubt they could ban it under their own rules. Laser pointers are class-1, but I wouldn't stare into ANY laser or even bright LED.
At a local Fry's they had LEDs on the rack with "don't stare, permanent eye damage" warnings. Or the Arctic Blue from wickedlasers.com - 1 Watt.
And there are many developments in lasers, and semiconductor lasers are just a special kind of LED, so both are under active development.
You are correct that the scatter pattern is key to the effectiveness, but the scatter pattern must be bright enough to be seen by the LIDAR unit, and if it is pointing at a headlight or license plate, it is looking there and the jammer will be in the LIDAR's peripheral area where it is less sensitive, so the brighter, the more likely it will JTG as the jam signal moves further from the center of detection. That also assumes you can keep the heads clean.
One other thing where I don't know if it makes a difference is usually lasers can produce shorter pulses (at top brightness) more easily than LEDs.
The prices are all high for the high-end jamming units, the difference is less than one ticket. Most work very well, so some things are convenience (how easy to mount), the price, and performance.
So I would agree that it is performance, not the inside technology. But the warnings and cautions should be taken properly - like the speed limits - there are some places where you can drive faster, other places where you shouldn't - use reason to know where and when to be cautious.
tz,
Please re-read the article, I did, in fact, touch on your point about RMR's ineffectiveness.
While this article was about laser jammers' functions, not any other products, with respect to your tangential reference to "coatings" may I point out that such a product(s) do not present the risk of 'irreversible eye damage' as Roy points out in his article. They are his words, not mine. And if applied appropriately are barely noticeable and therefor have little or no impact on safety, in my opinion. Although I am not surprised by the likes of this comment from you, as I fully expected attempts of "comparisons" or moral relativisms.
If such a unit is a Class 1M device as you suggest, then how could such a thing happen in the first place.
As I see it, either he got his facts seriously wrong or the product is not likely a Class 1M device. I don't know which is the case but since Roy went to, what I felt, considerable lengths to draw the reader to this information, I an tending to follow Roy's own advice, here.
If he is incorrect, I believe, it is he that should make the correction,not myself.
I am going to revise the article to include a little more detail about how laser jammers versus police lasers actually function.
Okay, so then your argument is basically, "His product is MORE dangerous and illegal than my product!" Wow, that's certainly an ethical stance. Puhleeze.
Despite your clear intentions to shift the topic of this discussion, this article has nothing to do about anything other than the subject matter discussed.
You're free to do whatever you damn well please. It's no skin off my back either way.
With regard to knowingly using a product that as Roy describes as being potentially very dangerous to your health. They're your eyes,not mine.
Perhaps, though, you should consider wearing protective eye-wear if you care to be able to see well when you get to my age.
How predictable it is that detractors of this article aren't willing to address the substance of it, but instead try to shift the burden or criticism to something entirely different. The number of shills that exist for this industry never ceases to amaze me.
Some of the shills won't admit it because they don't see themselves as shills. When they get substantially discounted products from LI, beyond what they can get through the rd.net forums, its obvious their continued influence is being bought. One of the worst will derail most threads about Blinder into an LI sales pitch, and yet turns around and makes comments like "It's about receivers, not power." which completely negates his constant harping against using Blinder products.
I think the terms LED and Laser diode get thrown around so much it is abit crazy. since both are used in LIDAR jamming the differences between the two are there. However the differences are not as big as they may seem due to their application.
Most people have the right idea when they think of a laser BEAM, If at a laser light show or playing with their cat with a handheld dollar store toy. coherent light of the same wavelength is generated, and the collimating lens gathers it all up so you can get a beam. Your typical dollar store toy is a laser diode. the area that actually produces the light is about the size of a bacterium. But this light without the lens has astigmatism, in short the light comes out as an ever widening line without the collimating lens.
This is important to note as where it concerns "laser diode" lasers. and is why the coverage area changes so drastically when you set the jammer head 90deg.
the typical LD jammers diode is orientated for a coverage area horizontal to the road giving it a wide plane as the light expands.
Now what pray tell is the difference between a laser diode and a LED? quite simply three things a) power B) switching times c) spectral bandwidth.
Laser diodes due to their construction are capable of some stunning feats of light generation. Fist off is power. the ammount of light these buggers can put out is nothing short of amazing. mind you it is for short duty cycles of only 50-60 ns (nanoseconds) but yeegads it does it in spades. Second. switching time. this is represented by TR/TF or time to rise/time to fall or in laymans terms how long it takes the unit to turn on or off when you flip the switch. This number for the diodes used in jammers is in some cases is only 1ns ...1..this means the the pulses generated for jamming are incredibly clean. Third, spectral bandwidth. laser diodes are very narrow , in short they produce all of their power in the spectral range that is going to be picked up by the pindiode of the LIDAR gun. Having the same spectral peak as the pin diode on the laser gun means you be Jammin.
Should you be frightened that you will burn your eyes out?...In a word no and here is why
Even given the differences between Laser diodes And LEDS the funny thing is that the word LASER in LASER diode is simply silly if in the context of the application. The laser diode in your jammer does NOT have a collimating lens
and is not generating a beam. If looked at in a foggy room it would look like an ever widening horizontal bar of light. Yes it is still LASER light but not a beam like your cat toy. In this case LASER does NOT equal BEAM. And I think that is where allot of people get it wrong. Most people equate laser to laser light shows and beams streaming from your car.
Beams are dangerous. or can be. But now you have to consider the "on" time of the laser. even in a beam, if your pulses are of short duration you are going to be fine. On top of that your have to consider spectral band of the emission. eV or energy per photon is quite low in IR. A UV laser would burn your eyes up at 1/4 the power of a IR laser.(NUV has a eV of 10.3 to 12)
Quite simply the Laser diodes are being used as a more powerful, quicker, cleaner and more accurate LED. without a collimation lens they stream light off like a 25deg LED with astigmatism.
SO no beam, short pulses, and low eV make your laser diode jammer pretty darn safe. But please. no sticking your eyeballs on your jammer while shooting at it with a lidar gun.
Overall as an engineer speaking to another engineer I would like to see your calculations as to the dangers of uncollimated emissions from the laser diodes at 25deg astigmatism. at rated duty cycles from the jammer. Please calculate your absorption rate using the eV of 1.24 -1.27 vs anything in the visible light spectrum. I think you will find you are way off in how dangerous Ir laser diodes are (as used in this application).
Lionel,
I appreciate your input here.
However, my article wasn't meant to serve as a technical dissertation to the specific aspects of the operating characteristics of any one particular laser jammer over another.
I was merely expanding upon the commentary presented by Radar Roy, himself.
Over the years, Roy has presented himself as a huge fan of Laser Interceptor and someone who has had considerable influence in establishing LI in the U.S. market over objections of a certain other Laser Jammer company who appears to hold the underlying IP rights to the technology.
It was Radar Roy who first setup/appointed LI's first U.S. rep who was a friend of his (AKA "Elvis").
I bring these points up because I believe Roy is sufficiently close to LI that he would likely know a fair amount about the operating characteristics of their products.
As such, I therefore take from this knowledge, that if Roy went out of his way to point out the dangers of the product, he is either grossly misinformed or simply manufacturing demand by using his warning/disclosure statements as a means to enhance his "selling" proposition that the LI's are 'very powerful.'
If they were not valid and as close as Roy is/has been to LI, why would LI permit such commentary to be published in the first place? Is it possible that Roy doing was doing a CYA?
With respect to actual testing, it is quite possible that this may actually come to pass (not by myself), but I can't go into details of this until such time that it is appropriate.
When more data becomes available Lionel, I hope you will review them and follow-up with your informed comments.
To be very clear, I have nothing against LI. They do appear to produce an effective product. What prompted my article was Roy's specific comments and warnings.
To the extent of IP claims by another manufacturer, I believe that will work itself in the court system, in time, and the chips will fall where they may.
Lionel,
I gave your commentary a little more thought and I realized that it isn't my place to prove or disprove Roy's claims, as HE made them, not I.
Since you appear to have a good-bit of knowledge, why don't you perform the tests and as long as you provide verifiable identity, I would be more than happy to publish your findings on my blog, while crediting you as the source.
OR, Roy should undertake the test(s) as they were HIS comments, NOT MINE. He certainly has the (financial) resources to do so.
In either case, I believe one of two things can happen.
Either
1) The units test our like Roy stated in his article (that they do, indeed, present a safety hazard and therefore do not likely conform to Class 1M ratings).
2) They prove to be within the classification of Class 1M and as such present minimal health concerns.
In the first case, LI may want to rethink their packaging. In the second place, Roy needs to actually get informed about the products he is selling before selling them.
Hmm. let's see. If I buy the Escort ZR4 system that you are touting, I will need to supplement it with a generous purchase of your product, Veil, in order to achieve a reasonable amount protection against current lidar guns. But if I buy a Laser Interceptor system, independent tests have proven that I won't need your product. I wonder why you are campaigning against Laser Interceptor???
Mike,
Please understand me, I have nothing against LI. It appears to be an awesome performing system.
Certainly if your finances allow, by all means use the product. It makes no difference to me...And with or without Veil...that too makes no difference to me, either.
Whether you choose to use an Escort ZR4 or a Blinder, or any other laser jammer, again, makes no difference to me.
If you think my article was meant to be some back-door means of "touting" Veil or Escort or Blinder, you are grossly mistaken...whether you choose to believe this or not.
Since you raised the point, I have a question for you?
How much is (Escort or Blinder) + Veil versus LI without?
For my personal choice, my preference is to go with either Blinder or Escort (as I have a ZR4)+ Veil as not only does it provide kick-a$$ performance, it provides a defense-in-depth approach to limits the adverse consequences of a failure of any one component while providing a synergistic enhancement when they work together.
For me, that is a no brainer.
I guess the ultimate combination (for you) would be the LI in combination with Veil...getting the best of all worlds...
If we can agree on the testing I would be more than happy to give you direct comparisons between total emission output level between Laser Diodes and LED's (as graph) or direct video evidence if you would like. Contact me privately and I will set up the tests between the ZR4 and the LI.criteria, Or if you wish to be present during testing that would be fine. If you wish to provide hardware for direct analysis that would be welcomed as well.
I would also like to show how spectral bandwidth plays a part in all of this. Even if the Laser diodes total energy output was equal to lets say the 6/8/10 LED's of a jammer, the much narrower peak output frequency (measured in NM or Nanometers) means more of that power is going to be centered on the LIDAR guns Sensor. If we are talking about power output hitting the sweetspot does matter
Here are two examples. first is a vishay LEDs I used for the 60.00 Home Made Lidar Tansponder (or known as the HMLT) Look at Fig 7 Relative Radiant Power vs. Wavelength. Most LED's even high quality ones will be very very close to this.
Http://www.vishay.com/docs/81313/tshf5210.pdf
As you can see the peak output is at 890nm with a wide swath of energy being lost on either side.(in this case from 820 to 920nm. (almost 100nm it width)
Now look at the graph for the Osram laser diode used in the LI
http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/08d5/0900766b808d55b2.pdf
It looks to be about 10nm in width maybe a little more, The question now becomes if we assumed (which I hate in science) that the Laser diode and the LED had the same output power which one would deliver the most energy in the peak spectral sensitivity of a LIDAR gun. It becomes pretty obvious who the winner is.
But in all of this is this bashing the ZR4? Actually NO., In my own testing I find the ZR4's Lidar Gun detectors to be better than everything I have tested. The sensitivity is quite top notch. But it could use some help.
As for safety issues of the LI. I think allot is said due to legal reasons. However in scientific terms if we can agree on some test criteria to prove eye safety I am up for that.
You asked, so here it is-
LI gen 8 Dual head system: $599 minus 10% discount code= $539.10
Escort ZR4: $449.95
Veil: $89.98
Total Veil and ZR4= $539.93
You should really pick your battles better. Veil is a decent product, from what I have read, but don't bite off more than you can chew.
mike,
point taken. but, for my money the fact that the extra .83 cents (provided you actually have the code) gets you a defense-in-depth approach, which is far superior.
furthermore, the zr4s provide a rear transponder (when coupled with veil) provides a decent level of defense to rear shots. in my own experience, i have successfully avoided speeding tickets from two rear-targeting situations. to do this with either the blinder or LI you need to buy more heads. that should be factored into your little equation to more accurately compare apples to apples.
and, incidentally, using your own price comparisons, that 10% discount code applies to veil as well as I understand it, so your numbers (and conclusion) are faulty.
have a nice day.
mike,
One other thought occurred to me when I read your latest comment.
The video Roy touts and the test results showing how effective the LI's were, were in fact dual laser-diode heads, which as I understand it are quite a bit more than the standard one diode head systems, despite the fact that when LI actually began selling units after Roy's video first appeared, they were single diode based systems, not dual as Roy demonstrated from that "test."
As I understand it from someone who was actually in attendance is that everyone there knew this as well, but failed to mention it or bring attention to this fact.
In fact, I believe there hasn't been much open discussion on RD.NET about this either.
I think this quite odd, especially coming from an online-group of enthusiasts who assert themselves as not being manipulated by commercial interests.
Was it an intentional omission by Roy, LI, and the other parties in attendance or merely an oversight?
I can't say for sure, but I can certainly understand some who would view this as a "bait and switch" tactic or the equivalence of "testing juiced units."
I'll leave it to the readers to form their own conclusions.
Veil guy,
I don't have a dog in this fight. I have been utilizing Escort's ZR3 shifters since 2003, and have been compiling research to increase my defenses to the newer lidar guns that have hit the market. Veil is apparently a valid tool to use against laser. This is what brought me to your site.
You were doing okay in your responses until your last post. I am not a Kool Aid drinker, but a vodka tonic would hit the spot right now. You might delete your last response or you might not post this comment, but that is okay, because this is your blog.
Just as this is your blog, my wallet contains my money. And because of your rude words, I will not be spending any of that money with you. You violated two cardinal rules of business. Are you ready for todays lesson?
Don't piss on the competition and don't piss off the customer.
If this is mike, then yes you are correct, the last post of mine was a bit over the top...as your last post pi$$ed ME off.
Re-read your post and your snide comment and then put yourself on the receiving end. And then honestly ask yourself how you would feel if someone ended their message with a sarcastic insult. Who drew first blood you or me???
But on the drive home tonight, I had time to reflect on MY response to you and decided after some cooling off time to revise it (prior to even seeing your last comment).
I will try to keep this follow-on discussion elevated to the best of my ability, but please recognize that being on the receiving end on a host of "attacks" can and does take a toll on you. If you don't believe me, start your own blog on this industry and then start voicing opinions. If you get read, you'll eventually understand what I am talking about.
In the meantime, please accept my apology and revised response.
Thank you.
Honestly I think this discussion should simply end until I can meet with Veil guy and demonstratively show the science behind each device.
Let the science and technology prove itself and using the scientific method prove who is right or wrong.
I will hereby claim my hypothesis that the output from a laser diode (namely the Osram laser diode at 905nm ) Is a superior component for the creation of jamming pulses for the express purpose of confusing LIDAR.
I will use as my documentation in the aforementioned links in my previous post of each of these components to the veracity of that statement. As such if Veil Guy wishes to do a clinical trial of both types of jamming technology I will happily provide a test bed single head generic "brute force" jammer that can be switched between LEDs and Laser Diodes.
I think that this should clear things up nicely. empirical proof of my hypothesis in direct testing with an agreed upon LIDAR gun(s) and and testing parameters should be able to net us real data.
What I have also considered doing is building a robot that fires the LIDAR gun. Believe it or not it is easier than you may think to have an optical tracking system that could lock the Lidar gun on target and track it And as proof of tracking taking a green laser as representative of the center of the lidar guns beam. I can have a simple gimbal tracking system with a servo to pull the trigger and output video from a spotting scope on board. I think it would greatly enhance the science and avoid the human element.
Any takers? People can say all sorts of silly things and make claims of "juiced units" or " you just want to sell more Veil" or any number of things. popularity groups abound. I can't get over how many little "My jammer is best foreva!" groups there are. I swear its worse than sparkly vampire vs werewolf debate
But science. empirical proof. Numbers, math, hypothesis tested then analyzed and to draw a conclusion based on principles of physics, electronics, mathmatics you find TRUTH. everything else is grandstanding BS.
These are devices based on science and our command of the electron. debate the science. Show me an error in my hypothesis and I will embrace your point of view.
But be expected to show your work.
Lionel, I really do appreciate your input to this discussion.
To clear, I really am not trying to sell Veil or Blinder or Escort and discourage the purchasing of Laser Interceptor. I really don't care what products people choose to use in their arsenal...just as long as they use something.
Nor am I really calling into question the performance capabilities of one laser jammer company/design over another.
Again, ultimately it is immaterial to me, really...and frankly what specific technology was used to obtain it, provided IP rights are/were respected. The end-results ultimately matter, in the real-world, not a lab.
Each of us drives with what we feel comfortable with. We each have our own preferences for each of our own reasons...and I respect that and celebrate that. Diversity is a wonderful thing, indeed.
The thrust of my article was meant primarily to serve as a reflection upon the implications of Radar Roy's statements with his final three bullet points.
Again, I feel that you shouldn't take issue with my pointing this out as much as question the veracity of the statements that Radar Roy actually made in HIS article.
If your goal is to demonstrate the superiority of laser diodes versus LEDs, then I believe that is an entirely different topic to be discussed on its own merits, separate from this discussion.
Perhaps such a "test" can be performed, but I believe it should be in its own context and not conflated with this topic at hand, that is the "dangers" of high-power laser diode operation not approved for use by the FDA, as Roy states.
As Mike said earlier, I too really don't have a dog in this "fight." I have zero financial interest in any of these other laser jammer companies. Can Radar Roy say the same?
And since it was Radar Roy who brought up the safety concerns, why not direct some of your commentary/questions his way? I don't proclaim to be an expert on active laser jamming technology.
My specific field of expertise is passive countermeasures, not active.
Or do your own lab test, and again, if you provide verifiable identity of who you are, your qualifications, and your connection to this industry, then I will be more than happy to publish your results with the appropriate credit to yourself.
Fair enough?
My connection to the industry started out as simply some out of the box thinking on building the first 60.00 jammer (that actually works) To being the chief technical officer of Laser Tamers (lasertamers.com)
By using fiber optic cable for both sensing Lidar and transmission of Jamming pulses I have developed a system that allows stealth installs of jamming equipment. Also adding the flexibility of extended points of detection throughout the vehicle.
A changeable lens system allows you to adapt the best possible
configuration for your car. No more "one size fits all " solutions.
One of the key developments is additional detection where you need it. not only for jamming hardware but for radar/laser detectors as well. Such as a clip on dual fiber and lens solution that places your laser detection on the front and back bumper. then the optical fiber clips on to the radar/laser detector. You can now keep your detector up high near the visor for radar and have the laser detection where you need it.
It is a major game changer and we have the patent for it.
If I sound like a infomercial forgive me. But I am developing some very interesting hardware to slowly turn the whole industry on its head.
My primary job is to run the animatronic and costume company Lion of the sun productions (lionofthesun.com) I build various realistic suits for low budget movies and commercials. One of my designs for a cooling system for costume wearers is now used by guys in Iraq and afghanistan under thier body armor.
I have been working in the electronics and engineering field for decades. and have built robots for Battlebots Tv show and autonomous robotics for FIRST.
In short, I am Doc Brown. Mad scientist extraordinaire. All the greatest toys in the world I build myself, or I learn how to.
Lionel,
At this point, I am tending to agree with your earlier post.
Any further discussion with you should happen offline, at this point.
Please provide your contact information, etc. privately to the following email address:
inquiries[at]laserveil.com
As far as the performance dispute I think Guys of Lidar sorts it out very well. I think folks can read the results and make their own conclusions as to what level of protection they want.
There are many things that use lasers these days (I have parking assist in garage that uses laser with warning about not looking into it, it's on ceiling pointing down) most have warnings about not looking into them.
Any argument about warnings should not be used as marketing material to make one product seem better than the other, we will all suffer for this. as the saying goes...If you live in a glass house you need to think twice about throwing stones.
Wow, I cannot believe how the comments to the VG blog have steered away from the context expressing concern over the points made in Roy's original blog.
Points were:
"Also the Laser Interceptor is unique from most laser jamming devices sold today such as the Blinder and ZR4 in that it is rated as a Class 1M device.
These laser diodes used in the Laser Interceptor are much more powerful then the Blinder and the ZR4 so there are some RISKS that you should be aware of."
"Because of its rating as a class 1m device, it has not been approved for use as a laser jamming device by the FDA therefore you would be technically violating federal law by having one installed in your car."
"The laser diode that the LI sensors emit are invisible and because of its power output could cause irreversible eye damage. So under no circumstance should you or another person look at the sensors while it is connected to a power supply."
"Laser Diodes also burn at a higher temperature then Laser LEDs and because of this are more prone to burning out."
Maybe Roy should not have made the statements in the way he did? Maybe Roy could have said; According to Laser Interceptor.............
To the best of my understanding, the VG blog appears to ask the obvious, WHY WOULD ANYONE RECOMMEND A PRODUCT GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR IRREVERSABLE EYE DAMAGE NOT TO MENTION VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW AND TO BE MORE PRONE TO BURING OUT?
One can argue all day long if it actually does cause harm, or if it does burn out earlier than LED's but that is not the point. Roy makes these statements on his site. The statement that it could cause irreversible eye damage maybe is just standard practice with devices such as this but why is anyone arguing that fact on this site?
As for the laser diode of the LI, it appears to be more powerful than the LED based jammers based upon the links provided by Lionel however if the proper timing is not used, all the power of the laser diode gains you nothing, so for the system to function effectively, it would seem that timing is most important, followed by power, and potentially beam width.
I was aware of the LI jammer heads used on the Freightliner in 2007 and was informed during the test that each head contained 2 laser diodes. When the product was released to the market, I was informed the production version only had 1 laser diode per head.
Also if I recall correctly, the LI jammer did not jam a particular laser gun until the company owner Ivan had an opportunity to study the gun in question and make a software change. Remember what I said earlier about timing!
Maybe the VG took liberty with some of his comments such as to say he suspects it won't be permitted to stay on the market for very long once the FDA/OSHA gets wind of it..... but it is his blog and I suppose as such he is free to speak his mind. I do believe he said he "suspects".
As for the RMR thing, I think the FCC was simply the tool used to stop them as in reality; the radar jammer did nothing that I could see to jam radar and in my opinion could have been considered false advertising at best. I believe Roy and others have written stories to this fact.
Hope I gave everyone something to chew on with a different perspective. Happy digesting!
Now that you mention it, Rock Mountain Radar used that very same marketing tactic with their products!
...The FCC is coming after us, so our products must work, BS.
Now Radar Roy is making similar kinds statements about the FDA and LI to market a product that HE SELLS.
What a contradictory position to take...and what a complete sell-out.
Its a shame too. I used to respect his opinions.
common guys. what else would you expect from a sellout?
Keep in mind I am not in the business to defend any person but to defend the science. To be honest science does need defending most of the time because people think science is a show of hands, a popularity contest and written by lawyers.
Its not.
I think I can clear a few things up about Roy's video. And really it is a minor thing and I am really surprised it has gotten so much traction. mmmm..How do I explain it.
I know! Ahem.
"People who sell, market, and test/demonstrate products often do not know ALL the science behind them. furthermore for the sake of liability they are asked to insert disclaimers, or believe there should be disclaimers to cover their butts"
I think most people here if asked specific questions about how a lidar jammer does what it does they would say something along the lines of "It senses the lidar guns pulses and sends out pulses/algorithms to confuse it"
But do they actually know HOW it does it. things like the pulse width and duration of the blanking. rise and fall times. variable power changes. the individual components that sense LIDAR pulses and make it work.
The answer is NO, 99.99% of your Lidar jammer people simply know that the heads need to be level and straight and the little black boxes make the magic happen. And to be honest people are not expected to know. I know because I am an engineer/mad scientist, this is my calling. And even then I often have to get the dremel out and tear a head down to find out exactly how it works.
There are dangers inherit to every device. I see stickers on lawnmowers that say "don't put fingers under mower while blade is spinning." take time to look at all the warning labels out there in your every day life and realize how STUPID people are and it will scare the shait out of you.,
Overall where it concerns the dual laser diode heads, Was the president of LI hawking them as price point that he sells the single ones for? I wasn't there so I don't know. Was he running them at the same power levels as he runs the singles now? was there a component change that improved the current generation of units? there are too many questions that cannot be answered definitively. and without direct evidence we can only speculate. which is AGAIN not science. It comes down to a popularity contest once again.
I think I will leave it at that. I have all the major brand name units in my possession and a few china copies. And I have seen everything from to shit to shineola and they all have some interesting design stories to tell.
Veilguy I have tried to send you several emails but they all bounced. you can send me one at thundolis (at) gmail.com and I will respond with my personal email for the contact information. please feel free to truncate this portion of the message.
I am not sure how to do that.
As they mention it is not always about Power but also about intelligence, for example how could a low powered LED jammer such as Blinder be any match for a 10X more powerful jammer. Different technology, we have noticed that laser diode jammers may be leaving LED's behind. Interesting to see how the new laser mask performs as well, anyone tested this jammer?
Post a Comment