ALPriority, Laser Interceptor and V1 vs Rear Facing Vitronic PoliscanSpeed

[winterbrew]

Here's a comparison test I made yesterday (one car fitted with LI quads, one with ALP quints).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY5SeXJj8rk

136

134

135


Rear facing Vitronic PoliscanSpeed set up at the base of the 2nd light pole after the exit ramp on the left. Takes photo of the back of the car after it passes.

First run (front cam) is v8.9 Laser Interceptor quad (2 front, 2 rear), v8.14 firmware running at max sensitivity. No alert from the LI, and the V1 picks up the lidar beam approx 110m after passing the camera.

Second run (front cam) is the ALPriority quint (3 rear, 2 front) v4.2.2 firmware. ALPriority alerts before V1 (static type noise), approx 30 - 40m after passing the camera.

3rd run is same as second run, but from rear cam of the car running the ALP. Poliscan and flash unit can just be made out next to base of light pole.

Looking at still photos from the first video, it would appear the Poliscan setup is not on too much of a harsh angle (some can be set to 45 deg across the road), and appears to bet set around 25 - 35 deg for a longer shot, and minimise lidar detection from back scatter from passing traffic.

Sun was directly to the right of the picture shining at right angles across the road, so both sensor types shouldn't have been disadvantaged.

Rear LI sensors were tested on return, and found to be fully functional.

Coming back in the opposite direction of travel (other side of road), the front LI sensors did alert to Poliscan, along with V1, so there does not appear to be a problem with the CPU. Likewise the front ALP sensors alerted on the return trip, but much earlier than the LI.

Conclusion - 4 receiving diodes per head (AL), are better than two (LI) with respects to PoliscanSpeed detection

[BestRadarDetectors]

Thanks for the excellent video. We have been taking abuse from many that say that the Laser Interceptor and the AL Priority are on the same playing field. All along I have said I would not have been happy with the same protection and I wanted the AL Priority to be the best. When we released the AL Priority for sale here I came out and said it would offer the best protection available and seeing videos like this make all the hard work worth it. Thanks again for sharing the many videos you have posted since you received your AL Priority. To date you have had I think over 20 Poliscan encounters more than anyone I know.

[RigToFly01]

Great Post! Very Informative.

[Radarrob]

Great videos!

[Yellowcab]

Excellent example of why AntiLaser dominates the AUS market. For years I and others have been sayings the most important aspect of a laser jammer is not its output power, but its sensitivity. You can't jam it if you can't see it.

[winterbrew]

Looks like the Poliscan was set up quite low on the tripod. When the beam hits you in the back at 10m (33') its' still very narrow, and probably hit below the license plate or on the rear bumper (LI heads are above the rear license plate). Without maximum sensor senstivity, you get failure to detect, and PT even before the jammer can fire. The LI poliscan algo works very well, but can't do its job, if it doesn't detect in time.

Poliscan only needs 10 consecutive pulses for a speed reading, and at 100pps, that equates to 0.1 sec speed aquisition time.

[winterbrew]

Unfortunately, thinking about it now, I've had a couple of other rear facers with a V1 alert after passing, and no LI alert. Always assumed, the Poliscan had just been setup and was in self calibration/warm up mode prior to actually prosecuting targets, and was not transmitting its usual pulse rates that the LI detects as Poliscan.

BRD - do you know if they is a delay between jamming commencing and actual audio alert on the ALP, such as happens on the LI to avoid brief falses ?

[RedRocket]

^ - I can answer that for you,wb.From my multiple videos taken in IR of the AL-P firing there is no delay whatsoever.The instant the blinking Blue LED shifts to solid Red & the "static pulsing" audio starts simultaneously the IR output has already been firing milliseconds ago.

There is no delay !

p.s.- Most excellent videos from you,tks.No question the AL-P has Superior receiving capabilities above any other as I've witnessed it myself during testing.

p.p.s.-please pass that on to your mate-"hiddencam",for me.I believe he was asking about that on another Forum.:highly_amused:

[L&R]

Great Videos.Thanks!

[BestRadarDetectors]

BRD - do you know if they is a delay between jamming commencing and actual audio alert on the ALP, such as happens on the LI to avoid brief falses ?

There is no delay with the ALP, As soon as it see's a threat it will alert you and it can distinguish false alerts extremely fast and to date I have not had one false alert with my ALP.

[nano]

Great video, winterbrew! Thanks for sharing.

Have you had any encounters where it was necessary to jam the Poliscan? During my driving, detection was always long enough to reduce to the speed limit. "Unfortunately" I was never in the situation to jam it, so I was wondering if you made already some experience.


Poliscan only needs 10 consecutive pulses for a speed reading, and at 100pps, that equates to 0.1 sec speed aquisition time.
From studying the working principle of the VPS, it is required to obtain a measurement distance of 10m (within 50 to 20m). There are a few other criterias (driving angle <5°,...), but they are all independent from the detected pulses.

[winterbrew]

Hi nano,

As you say, usually the warning you receive is > 200m so plenty of time to JTK.

These are a couple where warning is minimal. First video, detection is blocked by the car waiting to pull out of the junction on the left. 2nd is where they are using bushes to minimise detection until the last minute. Of course, when you meet a rear facing setup, it is always usually a JFG situation until you clear the measurement zone;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiuhm-3IGgw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK01tTOFSGw

[dinkydi]

sure hope the polis dont jump borders :D ,

[winterbrew]

Here's one I found in my dashcam archives, after thinking about the results in the first vid ;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDPYYi9190I

Laser Interceptor Quad (2 front, 2 rear), 8.9 heads, v 8.12A firmware misses a rear shot from a Vitronic PoliscanSpeed in the grey cabinet on the left of the freeway. LI was running at maximum sensitivity, and this was a case of failure to detect in time, not failure to jam. V1 picks up the rear laser and alerts after passing the camera.

About 80 -90% of the time, it will detect a rear facer (a miss is rare), but it kicks in around 50 -60m past the camera, which is too late, as the Poliscan has started it's calcs from 10m (33') past the camera, then IPT with a very narrow beam diameter, and will nab you at about 20 - 30m past. Hopefully LI will come up with a way to go to 'Volume 11' on the sensitivity for Poliscan, or give us new compact heads with more than 2 receiving diodes per head.

[dinkydi]

li's seem to be falling behind with progressive updates , at the moment, just wonder if more diode heads come out for the li ,would the cpu cope with that, or would every thing have to be designed from the ground up,