RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

[BestRadarDetectors]

BRD, of course. Tom posted a plate that you returned to him with way too much Veil applied to it. Our agreement was to keep all results between us since we were at pre-production. Perhaps it was an oversight on your part, but by Tom posting the picture I felt that that was a violation of our agreement (if only by proxy). Tom has also expressed his concern about glossiness. Feedback that I was appreciate of, btw, but I am assuming that was a result of a discussion that you've had with him given the experiments you have been posting. If I am wrong about that, my apologizes.

VG

I have purchased my own cans of G5 from different sources and I am capable of running and doing my own tests. Yes, I asked for my plate back and he left G5 on it and probably did not think much of it. I also purchased many other plates so I have a variety of flat and raised plates of varying colors and I have been testing the reflections from them on my own. When I do my full review I will show all of this but I am holding out for the road tests to complete my review and as I told you good or bad I will post the results and back up those results with HUD video so there is no doubt my testing was done correctly and completely honest. I even closed the other threads here because I was tired of hearsay about this product and only wanted discussion that had proof one way or the other.

When ALP released the Compact Fix we were scrutinized up the ass and even had people analyze the video proof to validate our video was not altered in any way. We even had to put out another video out with more HUD video on a different color car to prove that we could jam the gun on larger white vehicles as well as smaller black ones. Its no different with you releasing a product because people want proof that it works. There are tons of people in states where Jammers are illegal and I would love to be able to sell them G5 for some protection but I need to know it really works and that is what the customers are asking me to do.

RALETC is a smart group of guys and its no doubt they realized issues as I realized the same issues. They certainly dont need to work with me to test a product and I certainly can test a product on my own as well. Everyone just wants to get to the answer to the same question whether or not G5 really works. All this testing however should have been done before the product was released.

[Veil Guy]

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.


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?



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.

Good commentary here!

That's exactly what I think is happening here when Veil FAILS. The vehicle is out reflecting the Veil'ed elements. I have not been able to see certainly at farther distances that Veil's own glossiness is a contributor. I just don't believe it. We can easily tweak the gloss factor, EASILY, and I will commit to rerunning a serious of tests here. Perhaps we need to on more vehicles. That's something that I will do. I won't rule out the possibility that it wouldn't make an appreciable difference. G2 was very flat, but we got complaints about it. It's a difficult balancing act, trust me.

Here are a few tips that I have found with plates. Mounting the plate pitched forward, something that is very easy to do, can make a huge improvement in reducing the reflected laser. HUGE. Happya$$ had his front Ohio plate duplicated by a company that made one without the reflective material like the official ones have. To my knowledge he has never been called for using it. All of his video experiences, I believe were with that plate. I would recommend others to do so, whether you decide to use Veil or not. Jammer users will definitely benefit from that. I have even heard from those that have "scrubbed" that retroreflective portion of the plate with a brillo-type pad with great success as well. And of course, CJ has been happy with using that 3M tape on the plates as well. Don't know if he's ever been called for it by a LEO, but I don't recall seeing any such post to that effect.

VG

[Veil Guy]

I have purchased my own cans of G5 from different sources and I am capable of running and doing my own tests. Yes, I asked for my plate back and he left G5 on it and probably did not think much of it. I also purchased many other plates so I have a variety of flat and raised plates of varying colors and I have been testing the reflections from them on my own. When I do my full review I will show all of this but I am holding out for the road tests to complete my review and as I told you good or bad I will post the results and back up those results with HUD video so there is no doubt my testing was done correctly and completely honest. I even closed the other threads here because I was tired of hearsay about this product and only wanted discussion that had proof one way or the other.

When ALP released the Compact Fix we were scrutinized up the ass and even had people analyze the video proof to validate our video was not altered in any way. We even had to put out another video out with more HUD video on a different color car to prove that we could jam the gun on larger white vehicles as well as smaller black ones. Its no different with you releasing a product because people want proof that it works. There are tons of people in states where Jammers are illegal and I would love to be able to sell them G5 for some protection but I need to know it really works and that is what the customers are asking me to do.

RALETC is a smart group of guys and its no doubt they realized issues as I realized the same issues. They certainly dont need to work with me to test a product and I certainly can test a product on my own as well. Everyone just wants to get to the answer to the same question whether or not G5 really works. All this testing however should have been done before the product was released.

And I told you this Tom already, you don't have to do HUD shots to prove to me that you gave me honest runs. I know you like doing even with your jammers because of potential doubters. But even HUD shots have been faked. I am in NO way referring to your RALETC or any other legitimate testing group. I was thinking way back in the days of early RDnet when the "goon" squad did such things to trash other products while hawking their knockoffs.

Either you trust community members here or you don't.

I look forward to your results what ever they are just as I do from everyone else. The more test result and experience data we accumulate, the better we will be off as an educated community. No question...

While the Sarge recovers his calf, I gotta go shovel my loooong driveway now. Not looking forward to that.

VG

[dukes]

And I told you this Tom already, you don't have to do HUD shots to prove to me that you gave me honest runs. I know you like doing even with your jammers because of potential doubters. But even HUD shots have been faked. I am in NO way referring to your RALETC or any other legitimate testing group. I was thinking way back in the days of early RDnet when the "goon" squad did such things to trash other products while hawking their knockoffs.

Either you trust community members here or you don't.

I look forward to your results what ever they are just as I do from everyone else. The more test result and experience data we accumulate, the better we will be off as an educated community. No question...

While the Sarge recovers his calf, I gotta go shovel my loooong driveway now. Not looking forward to that.

VG

So you don't provide HUD shots cause they can be faked? Without HUD camera views and a base reading without Veil, these real world videos you share prove absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of Veil. How can you expect us to have any faith this product?

[Tman]

'' I have not been able to see certainly at farther distances that Veil's own glossiness is a contributor. I just don't believe it.''

How can you write this ? From a person studying passive cm for more than 10 years !!! , more over the top you say ''i justdont believe it'' ...my dear Watson this is elementary ...
shine your flashlight on a mat painted wall versus a glossy finish....glossiness is a crucial contributor : it is so basic : specular reflection\diffuse reflection...come on .

Honestly i think you take people for jugs to be filled...

You want to improve on customer's back and good faith ...to test for you ...free ...i believe your pour the drop that full my cup of patience.

Mirage showed your stuff has absolutely NO absorbtive properties @ Ir 905nm , but you keep knitting it does one way or the other.

Usque tandem abutere, VG , patientia nostra?

You should patent this recipe that is tested and proven in lab
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~minar/pdf...aper_UMICH.pdf

Here is my challenge , replicate this video ...and i will believe in V5 absorbtive properties

[Rocketman59]

Come on guys and girls. We are all on the same side here. We have allot of people here who are smart and have different levels of experience. I guess one of the things that surprises me is how rarely some of you get shot by LIDAR. Here in North West Ohio it is a rare week that I do not get shot at least once. Last week 3 times. Once on local road enforcing 25 mph limit (Truespeed SX) and twice on tollway (LTI 20-20 Utralight), the other was un-known. I plan on removing the G5 from the plates and install Ontrack Laser Shield. I will coat headlights, parking lights with multi coats. I have a trip next week and have no time to install any active CM.

I also think that to test G5 in a lab type environment would require same very expensive test equipment. Remember that the laser beam has to pass threw the G5 or G4, reflect off the surface underneath, then pass threw the G5 again going back the other direction. This will all add to signal (Laser) losses. I had a motor officer tell me he likes shiny new cars over dirty old ones because he can read there speed at greater distance. My background is RF energy. I have thousands invested in microwave test equipment and many of the same laws of physics apply. Lets all do our testing, document the results, and help each other come up with stealth cars and trucks that rob the city's and county's of there unfair tax collection. Anyway my two cents worth.

[The Only Sarge]

Checking back in....
Calf with Mama and 2 hogs are now rooting up Jesus's pasture and not mine
What a 45-70 does to hog flesh is still amazing to me.

[The Only Sarge]

Come on guys and girls. We are all on the same side here. We have allot of people here who are smart and have different levels of experience. I guess one of the things that surprises me is how rarely some of you get shot by LIDAR. Here in North West Ohio it is a rare week that I do not get shot at least once. Last week 3 times. Once on local road enforcing 25 mph limit (Truespeed SX) and twice on tollway (LTI 20-20 Utralight), the other was un-known. I plan on removing the G5 from the plates and install Ontrack Laser Shield. I will coat headlights, parking lights with multi coats. I have a trip next week and have no time to install any active CM.

I also think that to test G5 in a lab type environment would require same very expensive test equipment. Remember that the laser beam has to pass threw the G5 or G4, reflect off the surface underneath, then pass threw the G5 again going back the other direction. This will all add to signal (Laser) losses. I had a motor officer tell me he likes shiny new cars over dirty old ones because he can read there speed at greater distance. My background is RF energy. I have thousands invested in microwave test equipment and many of the same laws of physics apply. Lets all do our testing, document the results, and help each other come up with stealth cars and trucks that rob the city's and county's of there unfair tax collection. Anyway my two cents worth.

That is what is going on. Folks trying to ascertain what is real and what is not real.

[Veil Guy]

So you don't provide HUD shots cause they can be faked? Without HUD camera views and a base reading without Veil, these real world videos you share prove absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of Veil. How can you expect us to have any faith this product?

Actually at this point I don't.

VG

[Veil Guy]

'' I have not been able to see certainly at farther distances that Veil's own glossiness is a contributor. I just don't believe it.''

How can you write this ? From a person studying passive cm for more than 10 years !!! , more over the top you say ''i justdont believe it'' ...my dear Watson this is elementary ...
shine your flashlight on a mat painted wall versus a glossy finish....glossiness is a crucial contributor : it is so basic : specular reflection\diffuse reflection...come on .

Honestly i think you take people for jugs to be filled...

You want to improve on customer's back and good faith ...to test for you ...free ...i believe your pour the drop that full my cup of patience.

Mirage showed your stuff has absolutely NO absorbtive properties @ Ir 905nm , but you keep knitting it does one way or the other.

Usque tandem abutere, VG , patientia nostra?

You should patent this recipe that is tested and proven in lab
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~minar/pdf...aper_UMICH.pdf

Here is my challenge , replicate this video ...and i will believe in V5 absorbtive properties

No absorptivity at 905? Ludicrous.

So here is my challenge to you guys. Use Mirage's idea of doing five coats on headlights and show us all that performance dramatically improves PT distances over one or at most two coats with police lidar in conventional tests. I'll bet you a beer that it does not. If you were to assume zero reflectivity on the headlights you would still have PTs. With respect to gloss and shininess shoot your laser at a mirror. See how much glare occurs. Glare becomes an issue more on the bumper than from the headlights especially low in air dams. BMWs are especially bad at this and are tough to deal with even with actives.

BTW, that video was shot with a Gen 3 mil spec device that is super sensitive. In fact the imager in this device would fail if exposed to daylight for any period of time. Far more sensitive than civilian devices like police laser or prosumer 0 lux type devices.

I am curious what device you are using as a illuminating source and imaging device. It would also be interesting for you to do what Mirage did and target one of your slides at point blank range with a laser and see how much light passes through with one coat and how it is detected with your imaging system even with your system.

In terms of absorptivity we have equipment in our lab that tells us precisely the ODs we have achieved and they are very high. What you guys should understand is you reach a point of diminishing returns.

99.9% absorptivity is an order of magnitude greater than 99% and 99.99% is two orders of magnitude more. That's all well and good but it doesn't change the outcome of PTs on vehicles even if you had an OD >5.0

I don't understand why we are talking about anything other that what occurs in the real world and instead are talking about slides and point blank shots of intense cohesive light? For the love of Pete just test the damned thing on a test course on a variety of coats and or with jammers. If you what you say we're true there would be zero improvment and/or even worse outcomes than with it. I really don't understand why we are even doing this? Was G4 and G2 also ineffective at 904? All of these years bogus? You really believe that?
VG