RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

[Salty]

You are very much mistaken. I wasn't going to show this because I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you can clearly see Veil is REFLECTING

Attachment 3709

That's my hand, my cell phone, and oh you can see my pool in the background....

Wow...

[Mirage]

I am happy to hear that. It's just on RALETC's website, the highest number I've seen posted is 83% and that was on RR's three headed vehicle. Am I missing something here? How many vehicles have you tested where jammers WEREN'T installed properly? Out of level or mis-pointing? Generally during these meets, I see people making corrections and repositioning. So have many who have them installed and do not have the benefit of attending one of these events is driving around with optimal setups? Does that lead to a false sense of security for them?

I have repeatedly asked for tests showing baselines, jammers, jammers+veil and have yet to see one. Defense in depth is always the best approach and in the case of jammers, if performance numbers are shown to improve, then it will be very clear what supplementation of passives can do. I believe YC posted here something to that effect although I don't believe it was in a "public" thread. Too bad too, because it was a terrific post that could be every informative for everyone new to the game.

VG

You are talking about user installed tests. NOT controlled tests there is a very big differentiation here. I agree with YC's defense in depth assessment, but when the product does nothing at effective distances what's the point?

[Veil Guy]

You are very much mistaken. I wasn't going to show this because I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you can clearly see Veil is REFLECTING

Attachment 3709

That's my hand, my cell phone, and oh you can see my pool in the background....

Well of course it is! I know that. You are SUPER close. Try it with a night vision device with a laser gun at varying distances and the post the results. I would love to see that! Reflections are a funny thing. Lidar hotspots tend to be around curve convex or concave things and headlights tend not to be that way. Their curves are away from the source (therefore reflecting away from the source).

But look, your point is well taken, Mirage and I have heard you. G2 was very low gloss and we had a lot of complaints about it. Also keep in mind too that after a little bit of time Veil loses its sheen over time due to weathering. It starts out shiny and then dulls. In our tests in the field we haven't been able to confirm significant differences in dull surface versus shiny ones, so we have opted for appearance. But, I will tell you what, I will have us look at it again. Maybe we have missed something. Maybe testing more vehicles of varying shapes/configurations is in order. If you turn out to be right, I will thank you publicly thank you and RALETC for helping us make a better product.

VG

[awj223]

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.

The FDA obviously cannot regulate the Sun. The Sun just exists and still would even if the FDA declared it illegal. But staring at the Sun is not recommended (ask your eye doctor) because of a condition called solar retinopathy that you can get from staring into the Sun for too long. Also, common sense says that staring at the Sun is not eye safe. Headlights? I wouldn't look directly into the filament of the bulb, as that can cause eye damage too. Staring at the reflector from extremely close range does cause eye discomfort, because enough of the emitted light is in the visible range that you notice it.

IR lasers are even more dangerous than visible lasers because the blink reflex is not triggered. It seems painless, perhaps until you hear a pop in the back of your eyeball from your retinas overheating. That's why IR lasers can only be class I but visible lasers can be class II. http://www.lasersafetyfacts.com/reso...er-classes.pdf -- see "Techical Notes" box at the bottom. If your eyes are operating properly, you won't be able to stare into a class II visible laser for long enough for it to do damage, but IR lasers are different because you may not even know it's hitting your eye.

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.

Veil is likely reducing the IR returns, which reduces PT distance. It's obviously not going to stop 100% of the returns (nothing's perfect) but as long as it reduces the return from the headlights below the peak you get without Veil, it seems logical that PT distance will be reduced. Where this obviously fails is if the car is returning more IR than the Veiled headlights or plate; in that case, the limiting factor will be the amount of IR returned by the car body itself.

I would suggest that @Mirage test the amount of returned IR vs. number of coats of Veil with a light meter tuned to the 905nm range (the same type that you'd typically find in a camera). Human eyes aren't very good at telling how much light is returned, and the responses of our retinas to visible light is likely nonlinear. Also, the sensors in the IR camera used to conduct the tests may also be nonlinear so it's not really possible to tell how much reduction you're getting just by looking at those videos. But since you were obviously involved with developing the product, don't you already have some data on this?

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.

Attachment 3708

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.

Agreed. I bought my can of G4 thinking that I was going to try to help protect only the license plate on my car, which is white. Of course, I got a nearly IPT on a BMW running no front plate at all from over 2000' away with a LiDAR gun. That car was white. I think it's safe to say that there are some cars for which Veil would be almost completely useless. That said, putting Veil on the plate, which is the strongest reflector, may help a little bit. It certainly cannot hurt. But I could not even do that because of how dark the G4 was.

[Mirage]

But look, your point is well taken, Mirage and I have heard you. G2 was very low gloss and we had a lot of complaints about it. Also keep in mind too that after a little bit of time Veil loses its sheen over time due to weathering. It starts out shiny and then dulls. In our tests in the field we haven't been able to confirm significant differences in dull surface versus shiny ones, so we have opted for appearance. But, I will tell you what, I will have us look at it again. Maybe we have missed something. Maybe testing more vehicles of varying shapes/configurations is in order. If you turn out to be right, I will thank you publicly thank you and RALETC for helping us make a better product.

VG

That is the first comment today that actually sounds like someone that wants to improve their product. I wish you the best.

[Veil Guy]

You are talking about user installed tests. NOT controlled tests there is a very big differentiation here. I agree with YC's defense in depth assessment, but when the product does nothing at effective distances what's the point?

I disagree with your assertion. There are plenty of examples where this has proven to be true Mirage. Here's just one.



Happy called that a stealth to gun. It was on his blue altima I believe.

You doubt me, ask him, he was there.

VG

[Mirage]

I would suggest that @Mirage test the amount of returned IR vs. number of coats of Veil with a light meter tuned to the 905nm range (the same type that you'd typically find in a camera). Human eyes aren't very good at telling how much light is returned, and the responses of our retinas to visible light is likely nonlinear. Also, the sensors in the IR camera used to conduct the tests may also be nonlinear so it's not really possible to tell how much reduction you're getting just by looking at those videos. But since you were obviously involved with developing the product, don't you already have some data on this?

It's on my list of things to test and you are 100% on the money here. Remember the tests were not about how much was being returned, but that the mixture was not uniform resulting in the said returns.

[Veil Guy]

That is the first comment today that actually sounds like someone that wants to improve their product. I wish you the best.

LOL. Sorry it took so long to make THAT clear. This is my baby and perhaps I am being over protective.

I am ALWAYS up for constructive criticism or commentary and we're always looking to evolve better. If I've been misinterpreting these, then I apologize.

If you've caught some things we've overlooked, we'll whack 'em and you'll have my thanks.

VG

[Salty]

I disagree with your assertion. There are plenty of examples where this has proven to be true Mirage. Her's just one.



Happy called that a stealth to gun. It was on his blue altima I believe.

VG

This proves nothing. To me, it shows the LI's jamming. The V1 continues to alert due to how close it is to the lidar source. If you pause right before he passes the cop, you can see the cop has already moved on to the next car, yet the V1 is still alerting due to it's unreal lidar sensitivity.

[Mirage]

I disagree with your assertion. There are plenty of examples where this has proven to be true Mirage. Her's just one.

Happy called that a stealth to gun. It was on his blue altima I believe.

VG

WHAT!!!?!?! You did hear the LI in the background right? This is what you are passing as proof that Veil works? You're in deep trouble my friend.