RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

[Tman]

'' This is also closer to the color everyone is looking for too. I don't mind a slight tint (maybe not yellow), but it needs to be mostly transparent to be effective as a passive counter measure.''

It depends of what one wants to protect : on paint the banana stuff is ideal , it blends in the paint , even on a bright silver car , a cop would not discern it or inquire what this stuff is doing.
On rear light (red portion), the stuff is also unnoticeable.

Altough it really absorbs ir , it is not perfect : the oxigen and the uv will degrade it over 2 months period , though there is way to make it last longer with clear coating.

Where the banana shines the least is on headlights because of the tint and because a primer coating needs to be applied to acquire a good adhesion to the super slick plexiglass of the housing.

I feel for Vg because i know it is an impossible equation to resolve : clear coat + absorbtion = efficient cm.
Where i dont get it is the claim of absorbtion of Ir ...why claim absorbtion when this is not the principle that makes the tick-tick ...? there is a margin between reducing reflectivity versus absorbtivity.

As Mirage said it is a good step though the top of the ladder is still to climb.

[The Only Sarge]

'' This is also closer to the color everyone is looking for too. I don't mind a slight tint (maybe not yellow), but it needs to be mostly transparent to be effective as a passive counter measure.''

It depends of what one wants to protect : on paint the banana stuff is ideal , it blends in the paint , even on a bright silver car , a cop would not discern it or inquire what this stuff is doing.
On rear light (red portion), the stuff is also unnoticeable.

Altough it really absorbs ir , it is not perfect : the oxigen and the uv will degrade it over 2 months period , though there is way to make it last longer with clear coating.

Where the banana shines the least is on headlights because of the tint and because a primer coating needs to be applied to acquire a good adhesion to the super slick plexiglass of the housing.

I feel for Vg because i know it is an impossible equation to resolve : clear coat + absorbtion = efficient cm.
Where i dont get it is the claim of absorbtion of Ir ...why claim absorbtion when this is not the principle that makes the tick-tick ...? there is a margin between reducing reflectivity versus absorbtivity.

As Mirage said it is a good step though the top of the ladder is still to climb.

I agree and one shouldnt make claims of doing so if not true. Would you agree?
To me this is not about VG bashing ...it is about claims being made, both in the present and past tense, that are not holding water. That simple.
If I have more work to do on my product fine.....But I will not A) Make claims that are not true B) Take your money C) Attack people that question my products ability to deliver on my promises and advertised claims.

For me this is game/set/match. Cows came home. Fat Lady sung.

It's important to note that a light application of G5 on your head lights and your license plate alone will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with respect to protecting you from lidar. The tests here clearly show lidar pass through even past 3 coats.

[Tman]

Let's thank Tom & Al team to bring us the ultimate Solution

What would be an ideal passive solution is a wax absorbing ir ...We Can

[curmudgeon]

What would be an ideal passive solution is a wax absorbing ir ...We Can

"
Wax On, Wax Off"

[Veil Guy]

Hmm.

I don't know who should be more perturbed, Mirage for me sharing some results that we had when I attended a recent RALETC event with a G5 candidate or myself for a misleading adhoc test conducted by a senior RALETC member leading everyone to arrive at a false conclusion.

We'll for my part, since I don't believe this was done intentionally by Mirage or RALETC, I will couch my emotions (for a change). I would merely like to state what I believe Mirage has actually shown here with his "absorption" test of Veil G5.

Basically what Mirage has done is taken the entire energy of the laser, something that has been designed to measure distance in the thousands of feet in broad daylight and concentrated it intensely into one small circle at several inches at point blank range and in doing so has demonstrated the following phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturable_absorption

I have had a tremendous amount of respect for the past efforts of RALETC and I appreciate the time that Mirage has invested in trying to understand (or demonstrate) the mechanics of G5 and I also believe, at this point, that he is well intentioned, but my suggestion to those that would like to test Veil to at least test it in its intended use--on a test course against a police laser conventionally operated or on the open road against real LEOs.

And please listen to me when I say this, one coat of Veil G5 on the headlights of the vehicle is entirely sufficient. To suggest that five is needed before any real effect can be realized is flat out inaccurate and misleading.

VG

[awj223]

Hmm.

I don't know who should be more perturbed, Mirage for me sharing some results that we had when I attended a recent RALETC event with a G5 candidate or myself for a misleading adhoc test conducted by a senior RALETC member leading everyone to arrive at a false conclusion.

We'll for my part, since I don't believe this was done intentionally by Mirage or RALETC, I will couch my emotions (for a change). I would merely like to state what I believe Mirage has actually shown here with his "absorption" test of Veil G5.

Basically what Mirage has done is taken the entire energy of the laser, something that has been designed to measure distance in the thousands of feet in broad daylight and concentrated it intensely into one small circle at several inches at point blank range and in doing so has demonstrated the following phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturable_absorption

I have had a tremendous amount of respect for the past efforts of RALETC and I appreciate the time that Mirage has invested in trying to understand (or demonstrate) the mechanics of G5 and I also believe, at this point, that he is well intentioned, but my suggestion to those that would like to test Veil to at least test it in its intended use--on a test course against a police laser conventionally operated or on the open road against real LEOs.

And please listen to me when I say this, one coat of Veil G5 on the headlights of the vehicle is entirely sufficient. To suggest that five is needed before any real effect can be realized is flat out inaccurate and misleading.

VG

So what happens when the headlight is operating and throwing huge amounts of IR at the housing and at the Veil that coats it? This is especially true of old style halogen headlights which put out most of their energy in the IR spectrum. Are you saying that the Veil will be much less effective when the headlight is on?

If this is the case, then the tests should include:
1. No Veil on the lights
2. Veil on the lights, headlights off
3. Veil on the lights, headlights on

Oh, and then what about the strongest IR source in the Solar System, also known as the Sun? What if it's ahead of the car, shining very brightly onto the headlights, and then a cop shoots the headlights with LiDAR? If you've got saturable absorption issues from a weak LiDAR gun, I'd hate to see what happens when you add the Sun to the mix.

One coat on the headlights is sufficient? What about those of us who run front plates? Given your statement in this post: http://radarandlaserforum.com/showth...ll=1#post49751 it's clear that you are of the opinion that covering just the plate but not the headlights is insufficient. The converse of this statement is that coating the headlights but leaving the plate uncovered is just as useless, because you'll get an IPT from the plate reflections alone. That said, how did G5 make it to market apparently without testing it on license plates? We've all seen this image by now:



So we're all supposed to drive around with plates that look like that in order to be properly protected? And even then, only if the Sun isn't hitting the plates or our headlights?

[Mirage]

Hmm.

I don't know who should be more perturbed, Mirage for me sharing some results that we had when I attended a recent RALETC event with a G5 candidate or myself for a misleading adhoc test conducted by a senior RALETC member leading everyone to arrive at a false conclusion.

We'll for my part, since I don't believe this was done intentionally by Mirage or RALETC, I will couch my emotions (for a change). I would merely like to state what I believe Mirage has actually shown here with his "absorption" test of Veil G5.

Basically what Mirage has done is taken the entire energy of the laser, something that has been designed to measure distance in the thousands of feet in broad daylight and concentrated it intensely into one small circle at several inches at point blank range and in doing so has demonstrated the following phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturable_absorption

I have had a tremendous amount of respect for the past efforts of RALETC and I appreciate the time that Mirage has invested in trying to understand (or demonstrate) the mechanics of G5 and I also believe, at this point, that he is well intentioned, but my suggestion to those that would like to test Veil to at least test it in its intended use--on a test course against a police laser conventionally operated or on the open road against real LEOs.

And please listen to me when I say this, one coat of Veil G5 on the headlights of the vehicle is entirely sufficient. To suggest that five is needed before any real effect can be realized is flat out inaccurate and misleading.

VG

VG while the intensity of the laser will be diminished at distance the real world results have shown that Veil is still ineffective at distances less than 1000ft. That being said even if you were to conclude that the absorption is greater than the test that we performed it would still require significantly more Veil to accomplish the necessary absorption at 905nm to prevent a speed reading. Certainly a single coat has shown not to be sufficient. The point of the test wasn't to show the intensity of the laser, but rather to reveal the inconsistencies in the mixture and/or the application of the Veil to the vehicle. That being said would you care to comment as to whether Veil is a suspension or a solution? The results show regardless of the intensity (which was done for visual effect) Veil appears to be a suspension as there are zones of inconsistent absorption. The other possibility is the change from a nonaqueous to an aqueous based mixture may have affected the polymer chemistry and the polymers ability to adhere to the vehicles components/surfaces. This alone means that applying Veil is much more complicated and because the suspension is not uniform the coating of Veil on a particular installation is inconsistent. The real problem is even at closer distances which are still enforceable Veil fails to absorb enough of the lidar beam to prevent a reading. (ie the power of the laser exceeds the absorption capabilities of Veil). @Tman has shown a different material which even at extremely short distances is capable of completely absorbing the power of the laser with less visual impact. In addition, with carbon as your active absorption ingredient the color of Veil is too dark because it requires much more carbon to obtain an effective absorption of the lidar beam. Again, I didn't say it doesn't work. I said you need more Veil than what you are indicating. A thicker application is going to be necessary to achieve good results.

Here are examples of fundamental flaws in G5 that have nothing to do with IR absorption:

In this example, 2 coats of Veil have been applied to a head light lens ONLY. There is NO REFLECTOR behind the lens. So how do you explain the reflection? This is either due to the incomplete coverage of Veil G5 as I have stated previously -OR- this is a reflection off the Veil itself even worse. The product should absorb NOT reflect. In this example it does not matter what distance you are at. A reflection is a reflection.



This example is even worse and occurs after 4 COATS of Veil G5. Again no reflector this is Veil G5 applied directly to Lexan. A significant reflection again either due to inconsistencies in the G5 product itself -OR- due to reflection off of the G5. You be the judge.



Now as I stated in the review the reflection issue appears to disappear after 5 COATS of Veil G5. A reflection is a reflection and these will cause significant PT's at enforceable distances.




I'm not discounting the saturable absorption of the lidar beam at distance. This test was done to show the inconsistencies of the product which are more of the issue than the actual absorption. You state that, "To suggest that five is needed before any real effect can be realized is flat out inaccurate and misleading." This is not true because even at the distance we tested this was exactly what was required to achieve positive results. I'm willing to concede that less maybe required at greater distances IF YOU HAVE UNIFORM COVERAGE; however, to suggest that one coat is entirely sufficient is absolutely untrue as there are no results that have shown this to be the case. The fact remains this product has not gone through proper QC, and feels rushed to market.

The reason you are calling for real world tests is because you know they will be subjective. You can get different results on each run from reflectivity alone. If the lidar operator is unable to get a good reflection at the exact same spot as the control (i.e. No Veil) then it will appear as a success for Veil. "Look Veil has reduced the distance!" No it was just the operator unable to achieve exactly the same result due to the human aspect of the test.

Hell he has claimed he has jammed a poliscan based solely on the fact the he didn't get a ticket! Really??? How do you know it was even operating? Was he over the threshold? Poliscans operate at EXTREMELY close distances. They are tough enough to jam even when you have successfully detected them in advance. The claims he is making are so over the top and have absolutely no factual evidence and now he is trying to deflect by claiming the tests we are performing that show clear flaws in his product are invalid. These tests clearly show the fundamental issues with Veil G5 it's consistency, color, and uniform coverage. I'm still going to give him a real world test, but that test will be done through the HUD unlike ANY of his previous examples.

The results are the results.... The community can decide how much they trust the evidence vs the bold unsubstantiated claims by the maker of Veil G5!

[Tman]

[The Only Sarge]

VG is trying to apply a saturable absorption argument to dismiss Mirage's documenting the inconsistent characteristics of the product.
Problem with this is the saturable absorption argument only applies to a constant saturation fluence. We do not have that here.
When you are dealing with pulses of light, reflections, sun, headlights, varying degrees of final product concentrations of carbon (or IR absorbing element) etc. the theory of saturable absorption to dismiss observing inconsistencies in the suspended ( I assume) carbon on various surfaces is apples to a rock comparisons.....and is misapplied.
The inconsistent final application results of the product reflect a challenge to claim any type of results as it relates to amount of IR absorbed at any distance or light concentration.

Bottom line is simple. There is no way to claim the IR absorption capabilities with inconsistent or varying concentration(s) of a/the IR absorbing elements in its final applied state. One headlight may have more IR absorbing characteristics than another, even when both are applied exactly the same. One cannot make any consistent claims of performance in that environment.

[Mirage]

VG is trying to apply a saturable absorption argument to dismiss Mirage's documenting the inconsistent characteristics of the product.
Problem with this is the saturable absorption argument only applies to a constant saturation fluence. We do not have that here.
When you are dealing with pulses of light, reflections, sun, headlights, varying degrees of final product concentrations of carbon (or IR absorbing element) etc. the theory of saturable absorption to dismiss observing inconsistencies in the suspended ( I assume) carbon on various surfaces is apples to a rock comparisons.....and is misapplied.
The inconsistent final application results of the product reflect a challenge to claim any type of results as it relates to amount of IR absorbed at any distance or light concentration.

Bottom line is simple. There is no way to claim the IR absorption capabilities with inconsistent or varying concentration(s) of a/the IR absorbing elements in its final applied state. One headlight may have more IR absorbing characteristics than another, even when both are applied exactly the same. One cannot make any consistent claims of performance in that environment.

You said that way better than I could and you are exactly right. I added a few videos to demonstrate the flaws and why these are fundamental in the coverage of G5 when applied to various vehicle components. They have nothing to do with the absorption so his claim of saturable absorption does not apply. A reflection of any type even at distance is going to produce a punch through. End of story.