RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

[kasher1979]

Kasher, no one was hard on him until he started insulting people. He couldn't have handled the situation any worse. Even people like Hidalgo I think it was, VG completely turned on him after Hidalgo gave him constructive, polite criticism.

Oh yes I totally agree. What I really meant there is that yes we were hard on him, but it was for a reason and justified.

[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?

[Veil Guy]

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?

There is simply no comparison between a "high intensity" highly cohesive form of light specifically at 904-905m, highly focused and at point blank range (literally inches) and IR radiation either from the sun or headlights. I am not aware of FDA eye safety ratings of class for IR radiation of such things. If I am wrong, one can certainly correct me on that.

With respect to your commentary about headlight operation and performance, as a QC on G5, we recently conducted a field test with the same vehicle that we have used over the years for G2-G5 development and they were conducted with the headlights on. The results have been the best to date. To suggest that Veil is ineffective below a thousand feet as a general statement is completely false. The results were:

LZ1 (feet): 696, 404, 301
LRB (meters): 121.8, 99.0, 83.1
TS (feet): 414,343

Your idea for testing with the lights on/off is intriguing. We haven't found any notable differences.

These lights when being targeted gave reduced PTs than the target of the vehicle's surfaces that were not treated. Notions of reflectivity of pass through of IR in Mirage's "lab" really don't correlate to the real-world as evidenced by our results. If you doubt them, then you doubt my word in which case there is no point in me trying to convince otherwise. Nothing I say will be believed.

There are several things that I have asked for and as yet have been able to see. I have asked RALETC to do runs on vehicles without any CM used and preferably not with the absolute worst case vehicles. Then run them with Veil, then jammers only, and the in combination. Where jammers come up short, it should be quite apparent that performance gains are to be had when used in combination. Further for those that doubt the results of the 99 green honda above or the C7, I would say test the darn vehicles yourself. Civics are pretty common.

Making general conclusions from Mirage's tests and beliefs doesn't serve to understand the performance on the real-world. The claims and results that Mirage is making about G5 would be equally applicable to G4 (and G2). The physics are the same. Certainly Qui-Qon, Happya$$, Hidago among with many others who have actually used Veil in various forms over the years will attest to its efficacy on the road.

I really won't get into detailed discussions about our development or others' attempts at doing so. I believe that's crossing the line into our IP and really getting into our "kitchen," and I am kindly asking to cease doing so, it makes us very uncomfortable Please respect that. Thanks.

The bottom line is really simple and I really don't understand why so much of RALETC's energies are being directed in this manner. Do tests of G4 versus G5 or simply do tests as RALETC is supposed to do. The results will be the results. Please just test it as it was intended and on a variety of cars. Certainly if you want to test it with one coat on the headlights or two coats to see if there are any differences of any significant degree, by all means do so. As part of our development we do this as well and we have found that there is a point of diminishing return. Even if the headlights are 100% non reflective (completely eliminated from the reflective equation) PTs will occur with any vehicle with the worst vehicle shapes and colors giving the highest.

Please just do what I have asked and conduct conventional tests. I'll be more than happy to discuss the strengths/limitations of Veil or passive stealth solutions in THAT CONTEXT, then we can have a productive dialogue. In one test we have attended and RedRocket should be able to attest to this as it was his personal observation. When my silver sedan that had what was effectively G5 on it was parked facing his car that had a V1 mounted on his windshield, he noticed that his V1 stopped alerting when laser's were being fired and the vehicles with jammers we getting very close to the targeter. The reason was that the material was doing its job of attenuation and reduction in reflectivity.

At this point I don't know if YC is still coming out to AZ, but there will be plenty of opportunity to put G5 through its paces in the manner that I have repeatedly asked for. Heck he can even bring some G4 to test by comparison just for S&G. I believe that when there will be performance gains to be seen, it will be with G5 over G4. Remember guys, Veil has been in production for more than 10 years now and has had its share of testing both on close course and open-road. I think I can think of less than a handful of experiences where FAILs actually resulted in speeding citations (I was one of them). No CM is perfect and each has its limitations. As YC posted here and I have said repeatedly over the years, defense in depth is the best approach.

What I am most interested in seeing is real-world videos of its use--win, lose, or draw. Short of that, please just test it in the manner that it was designed for.

Thanks.

VG

[Salty]

There is simply no comparison between a "high intensity" highly cohesive form of light specifically at 904-905m, highly focused and at point blank range (literally inches) and IR radiation either from the sun or headlights. I am not aware of FDA eye safety ratings of class for IR radiation of such things. If I am wrong, one can certainly correct me on that.

With respect to your commentary about headlight operation and performance, as a QC on G5, we recently conducted a field test with the same vehicle that we have used over the years for G2-G5 development and they were conducted with the headlights on. The results have been the best to date. To suggest that Veil is ineffective below a thousand feet as a general statement is completely false. The results were:

LZ1 (feet): 696, 404, 301
LRB (meters): 121.8, 99.0, 83.1
TS (feet): 414,343

Your idea for testing with the lights on/off is intriguing. We haven't found any notable differences.

These lights when being targeted gave reduced PTs than the target of the vehicle's surfaces that were not treated. Notions of reflectivity of pass through of IR in Mirage's "lab" really don't correlate to the real-world as evidenced by our results. If you doubt them, then you doubt my word in which case there is no point in me trying to convince otherwise. Nothing I say will be believed.

There are several things that I have asked for and as yet have been able to see. I have asked RALETC to do runs on vehicles without any CM used and preferably not with the absolute worst case vehicles. Then run them with Veil, then jammers only, and the in combination. Where jammers come up short, it should be quite apparent that performance gains are to be had when used in combination. Further for those that doubt the results of the 99 green honda above or the C7, I would say test the darn vehicles yourself. Civics are pretty common.

Making general conclusions from Mirage's tests and beliefs doesn't serve to understand the performance on the real-world. The claims and results that Mirage is making about G5 would be equally applicable to G4 (and G2). The physics are the same. Certainly Qui-Qon, Happya$$, Hidago among with many others who have actually used Veil in various forms over the years will attest to its efficacy on the road.

I really won't get into detailed discussions about our development or others' attempts at doing so. I believe that's crossing the line into our IP and really getting into our "kitchen," and I am kindly asking to cease doing so, it makes us very uncomfortable Please respect that. Thanks.

The bottom line is really simple and I really don't understand why so much of RALETC's energies are being directed in this manner. Do tests of G4 versus G5 or simply do tests as RALETC is supposed to do. The results will be the results. Please just test it as it was intended and on a variety of cars. Certainly if you want to test it with one coat on the headlights or two coats to see if there are any differences of any significant degree, by all means do so. As part of our development we do this as well and we have found that there is a point of diminishing return. Even if the headlights are 100% non reflective (completely eliminated from the reflective equation) PTs will occur with any vehicle with the worst vehicle shapes and colors giving the highest.

Please just do what I have asked and conduct conventional tests. I'll be more than happy to discuss the strengths/limitations of Veil or passive stealth solutions in THAT CONTEXT, then we can have a productive dialogue. In one test we have attended and RedRocket should be able to attest to this as it was his personal observation. When my silver sedan that had what was effectively G5 on it was parked facing his car that had a V1 mounted on his windshield, he noticed that his V1 stopped alerting when laser's were being fired and the vehicles with jammers we getting very close to the targeter. The reason was that the material was doing its job of attenuation and reduction in reflectivity.

At this point I don't know if YC is still coming out to AZ, but there will be plenty of opportunity to put G5 through its paces in the manner that I have repeatedly asked for. Heck he can even bring some G4 to test by comparison just for S&G. I believe that when there will be performance gains to be seen, it will be with G5 over G4. Remember guys, Veil has been in production for more than 10 years now and has had its share of testing both on close course and open-road. I think I can think of less than a handful of experiences where FAILs actually resulted in speeding citations (I was one of them). No CM is perfect and each has its limitations. As YC posted here and I have said repeatedly over the years, defense in depth is the best approach.

What I am most interested in seeing is real-world videos of its use--win, lose, or draw. Short of that, please just test it in the manner that it was designed for.

Thanks.

VG

Tom and I were going to do some testing tomorrow, but I was just in the hospital for 4 days and I'm still feeling very weak. I spiked another fever last night as high as 103. I need to get my strength back and kick this infection, and as soon as I do, we'll be doing some testing with HUD video.

[BestRadarDetectors]

The bottom line is really simple and I really don't understand why so much of RALETC's energies are being directed in this manner. Do tests of G4 versus G5 or simply do tests as RALETC is supposed to do. The results will be the results. Please just test it as it was intended and on a variety of cars. Certainly if you want to test it with one coat on the headlights or two coats to see if there are any differences of any significant degree, by all means do so. As part of our development we do this as well and we have found that there is a point of diminishing return. Even if the headlights are 100% non reflective (completely eliminated from the reflective equation) PTs will occur with any vehicle with the worst vehicle shapes and colors giving the highest.

Can you clarify which customers can use G5 and which customers can not. I hate the idea of giving people a false sense of security. Why not make it clear who will and who will not benefit from G5

Based on your past posts and correct me if I am wrong you have stated that the following types are cars are a good candidate:

1. Cars that are darker in color
2. Cars that dont use front license plates (FYI.. 31 states require a front license plate)
3. Cars that dont have chrome on them
4. Cars that have more of a Triangle type front end.

Looking over your literature and website I dont see any requirements for the product which leads people to believe that just covering their head lights and fog lights will buy them some time but if they have a chrome grill regardless of their headlights being protected at 1000ft a gun aimed at a headlight will reflect off the grill with the beam being almost 3ft wide.

The normal vehicle that we use for testing is always a metallic white Nissan Altima with lots of chrome because its a hard car to protect. We believe that when testing you should always try for success on the hardest of cars and test in the worst case scenarios.



Now if G5 worked as intended on this type of test car we would still almost get IPT because it does not fit the requirements for a successful G5 vehicle because of its paint, stance and the chrome all over it. Can you please make it clear for everyone what types of cars they must have for G5 to give results that you have seen? When Salty is feeling better we can test G5 and I will get a different car to use but I want to stick with a car that is an average popular car that most people own. All your customers cant be driving around in corvette's so I want to keep this test real. Please also do not take this as an attack but people really need clarity when purchasing a product to know if it will work on their particular vehicle. There are no requirements listed anywhere and I think its something that needs to be done.