RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

[RedRocket]

Was that a VEILED Laser Shield? I should be able to easily duplicate a test like that using a laser gun and IR Camera.

Yes, that was Qui-Gon's LaserShield covers that he was ordered to remove by NYSP.

[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

[The Only Sarge]

If I refer to one of my patents in a "warning" type manner I must post that patent.
How can people know when they cross into your IP Bob if you do not provide the patent info?

Better yet. I will send Mirage my patent documentation. You do the same. I trust his privacy discretion.

[The Only Sarge]

There Mirage now has my (very easy to do) patent info and all the filing information on one of my patents.

[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.

[The Only Sarge]

Bob...are you talking about this?
http://www.google.com/patents/US6794431
You own none of the components listed in this application filing. You list the various manufacturers that own the components that you utilize but you do not own any of them.
I am confused what your claiming.


isopropyl alcohol  7.86 g
n-propyl alcohol  7.88 g
acrylic copolymer 66.43 g
ammonia (aq) 28% 1.984 g
n-butanol  7.96 g
acetone  3.9 g
Epolite ® III-189  0.25 g
Cyasorb ® UV-24  0.3 g
Total Weight 96.561 g 
Epolite® III-189, which is a near-infrared absorbing compound, is commercially available from Epilon, Inc. of Newark, N.J.

[BestRadarDetectors]

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.

Feel better and take care of yourself. We will get this testing done eventually... The 7" of snow yesterday did not help matters either.

[The Only Sarge]

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.

Oh hell son...take a break...heal.

[Veil Guy]

Bob...are you talking about this?
http://www.google.com/patents/US6794431
You own none of the components listed in this application filing. You list the various manufacturers that own the components that you utilize but you do not own any of them.
I am confused what your claiming.


isopropyl alcohol  7.86 g
n-propyl alcohol  7.88 g
acrylic copolymer 66.43 g
ammonia (aq) 28% 1.984 g
n-butanol  7.96 g
acetone  3.9 g
Epolite ® III-189  0.25 g
Cyasorb ® UV-24  0.3 g
Total Weight 96.561 g 
Epolite® III-189, which is a near-infrared absorbing compound, is commercially available from Epilon, Inc. of Newark, N.J.

Very simple. Such detailed discussion of our formulations and method of use in a public context makes me uncomfortable. It's been done before over the years and each time that's what I feel. It makes me very uncomfortable. That's how I feel about all of this. May I suggest you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in development and patenting something only to find yourself getting or being pushed into a public discourse as to the details of what you do/did? Then let's talk about it. Perhaps you would be more appreciative of our perspective. I am sure Mirage/YC and many others have already looked at the details. It is easily searchable both on Google and on the USPTO site. If Mirage was really interested in providing constructive feedback, it would be far better for that to occur out of the public eye and without the involvement of a vendor. It's called discretion and it would be better received in that context. That's what I meant.

VG

[The Only Sarge]

Oh hell Bob I pay big bucks to prosecute violations of my patent(s). Recently had a federal court in Georgia lay wood to a SOB in Florida.
So I am firmly on your side as it relates to IP protection there.
I will say though I am very careful what I say is IP and what is public domain.
Anybody can develop IR absorber, change a "recipe" one or two items and voila....outside application patents. Happens daily.
Especially when one is just using others patented products and mixing them together. This is why I was asking. I thought maybe you owned some magic chemistry that you developed versus using others components and just mixing.
No big deal.
And for the record...I am into multi millions not hundreds of thousands (dollars) on the development of all my IP.