PDA

View Full Version : RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1



Mirage
03-19-2015, 10:53 PM
The information contained herein is the official RALETC results of our Veil G5 testing with the production product. As many of you know, we were given an early look at the G5 prototype. During this beta period we identified several issues with the product including the thickness, color, and consistency of the prototype G5. We also tested the G5 prototype against our own ALPR camera and reported these same results back to Veil Guy. As I had previously stated on this and other forums, I was quite preturbed with Veil Guy quoting stats from an adhoc test that he decided to partake in as a result of a prototype he had on his BMW. That test was NOT done on the official Veil G5 release and RALETC was not responsible for the application of the product on Veil Guys vehicle or the control in which the test was done as such we did NOT record any details. I still stand behind this statement and will officially say RALETC has still NOT tested G5 on a vehicle as of 3/19/2015.

There have already been numerous conversations about the effectiveness of G5 and the overall color and thickness of the product. Veil G5 does appear much darker than the previous G4 product and it is much thicker and much more difficult to make smooth. These consistency issues were also identified during our prototype test. The official stance is that the product to date is still too dark for a white license plate. I'm sure you've all seen these or similar pictures but here is an example for those of you that may have missed it.

3694

As you can see on a white license plate the color is entirely too dark and will for sure get someone pulled over. VG has recommended using a plate cover as it yields better results and while the results do appear to be slightly better with a plate cover they are still too dark to prevent a road side disco. With this in mind we do not recommend using G5 on a license plate at this time. (VG has indicated they are working on making some changes to the color and hopefully a future release will be a better option for license plates). We also attempted to use an airbrush for a more consistent application, but unfortunately G5 is too thick and even diluting the product with water only resulted in spitting and sputtering from the paint gun. This too needs to be addressed for even, complete, and smooth coverage.

We also applied Veil G5 to a head light to see what the color and consistency looked like on the head light lens. Here is a comparison of the uncoated lens and a single coat of Veil G5.

Headlight Before Veil
3695


After a Single coat of G5
3696

As you can clearly see, a single coat of G5 on a headlight looks really good. We noticed some streaks in the single coat so we applied a second coat and while it is darker it is still very pleasing. It is transparent and doesn't appear to drastically affect the visible light from the head lamp. These are all very good, but how did it do against lidar?

http://youtu.be/YTBz3yxTY_o

Well unfortunately you can see even with 2 coats, lidar still passes through the lens without issue. So the question became does Veil actually work? How much Veil is required to get a reasonable amount of lidar blocked?

Here is our test board

3697

It was discovered that consistent results began to appear after about 4-5 coats of G5. The consistency of the product is still poor as you will see lidar coming through in certain spots on the various test squares, but at least it appears to be blocking lidar to some degree. While I did not show this, even with the heaviest application of G5 it still passes visible light just not as bright. It also reflects IR as you could clearly see the IR illuminators for my camera reflecting off the Veil, but it does seem to block 905nm pretty effectively.

http://youtu.be/qVH0frqw4mA

So what does all this mean? Basically the product appears to work, but it does need some modifications to be a viable solution. I think we may have been a bit hard on VG as a result of the initial tests, but hopefully he is motivated to improve the product even more. The consistency and spreadability of the product was the biggest disappointment for me, but hopefully this is something that can be addressed in addition to the obvious color issues. There is no doubt that G5 in its current form will not be usable by the masses as I suspect no one is going to put 5 coats of Veil on their car unless they have a black vehicle and even so the head lights cannot take that amount and still be usable. 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. In order for this to be a truly passive solution one would need to cover all reflective areas on the front of the vehicle including the actual bumper and any surface that could reflect back to the gun. Again, this for most people is NOT an option and even VG does not recommend G5 on painted surfaces. Even at close distances most guns are going to produce a lidar signal big enough to encompass more than a license plate or head light and as a result covering only those areas will not be enough to prevent a lidar reflection. I would love to see this product in a clear bra format or something like an adhesive sticker in which Veil is infused. This would be an ideal solution as the consistency would be much more precise as compared to putting the product on with a foam brush.

In part 2 we will attempt to show how G5 might be used effectively! Stay tuned!

tawwwd
03-19-2015, 11:21 PM
Thanks for sharing! Looking forward to further testing!

Tman
03-19-2015, 11:27 PM
This is what i would expect from a commercial product advertised as IR absorber


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9Ju7dreJQ

The Only Sarge
03-20-2015, 01:26 AM
What I see is the claims of a "light coat" and laser protection are totally bogus.
If it takes numerous coats (to get even a small result) the average guy is never going to smear that much crap on his car. Might as well smear peanut butter on your car and get the same results with less attention than driving around with smeared up blacked out lights.
I mean what happened to JTG with the Dragon Eye that was claimed after just a "light coat" and the Dragon Slayer comment? Impossible and your evaluation proves it.
Further....now G5 is being "walked back" from being used on the license plate. So that pretty much leaves you with only the headlights being available to smear.
Oh well...................

dinkydi
03-20-2015, 03:47 AM
even with all the best intentions, vg , seems to have been released the product to early, but good to see hes sticking with it

Mirage
03-20-2015, 04:47 AM
This is what i would expect from a commercial product advertised as IR absorber


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9Ju7dreJQ

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.


What I see is the claims of a "light coat" and laser protection are totally bogus.
If it takes numerous coats (to get even a small result) the average guy is never going to smear that much crap on his car. Might as well smear peanut butter on your car and get the same results with less attention than driving around with smeared up blacked out lights.
I mean what happened to JTG with the Dragon Eye that was claimed after just a "light coat" and the Dragon Slayer comment? Impossible and your evaluation proves it.
Further....now G5 is being "walked back" from being used on the license plate. So that pretty much leaves you with only the headlights being available to smear.
Oh well...................

After reviewing the video it wasn't JTG with the Dragon Eye albeit the numbers for all intensive purposes were awfully close to JTG. JTG was never officially stated and I was corrected on that. The point is VG wasn't lying... it is absorbing lidar it's just going to take too much product to get to an acceptable level of absorption that will leave most not willing to use it. I mean seriously if I could get the look of the single coat on the head light and have the 5 coat performance or close to it. I would be putting this all over my car. I thought that was an unrealistic goal until @Tman (http://radarandlaserforum.com/member.php?u=6999)'s post. He shows that it could be done... Now peanut butter might be a stretch, but it would certainly smell better! :encouragement:

BestRadarDetectors
03-20-2015, 07:05 AM
That's an interesting way to test G5 shooting the gun through the headlight lens at the camera using IR to see if the light goes through to the camera. Do you have a Laser Shield plate cover that you can use to test OnTRack's Laser Shield doing the same thing?

Mirage
03-20-2015, 07:20 AM
That's an interesting way to test G5 shooting the gun through the headlight lens at the camera using IR to see if the light goes through to the camera. Do you have a Laser Shield plate cover that you can use to test OnTRack's Laser Shield doing the same thing?


I don't have one, but I can certainly acquire one and test it.

The Only Sarge
03-20-2015, 08:03 AM
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.



After reviewing the video it wasn't JTG with the Dragon Eye albeit the numbers for all intensive purposes were awfully close to JTG. JTG was never officially stated and I was corrected on that. The point is VG wasn't lying... it is absorbing lidar it's just going to take too much product to get to an acceptable level of absorption that will leave most not willing to use it. I mean seriously if I could get the look of the single coat on the head light and have the 5 coat performance or close to it. I would be putting this all over my car. I thought that was an unrealistic goal until @Tman (http://radarandlaserforum.com/member.php?u=6999)'s post. He shows that it could be done... Now peanut butter might be a stretch, but it would certainly smell better! :encouragement:

LOL....Ok needles and pins. Dragon Slayer, light coat, countermeasure "depth" on and on and on.....truth is you cannot put this on your license plate....the number one target for most of us.....and you have to disfigure your car to even get the slightest advantage. Again....I maintain it is no better in providing LIDAR protection than PB/BBQ Sauce, etc. Smear enough of those products on your headlights eventually you will get some lidar "absorption".....equal to or greater than Veil.

Any counter measure solution should not draw attention to itself. Blacked out headlights smeared with Carbon is going to draw plenty of attention. And for what? Apparently not enough to justify disfiguring your car for sure.

Salty
03-20-2015, 08:09 AM
As always, excellent work Mirage.

The Only Sarge
03-20-2015, 08:15 AM
I would also be curious of 3M tape as well as BRD plate covers.

ShadowSe7en
03-20-2015, 08:47 AM
Not trying to be sarcastic here but wouldn't flat black spray paint be just as effective? It seems like the only way the stuff in the video works is by being put on thick enough to block out IR light from reflecting back from the headlight reflector. When it is that thick is essentially blocks out the headlight from shining through. I would think black paint, or even plasti dip sprayed over the headlight to completely block it out would be more effective. At least then you could just peel the dip off if you were doing a day time road trip. Is my theory incorrect here?

Mirage
03-20-2015, 08:53 AM
Not trying to be sarcastic here but wouldn't flat black spray paint be just as effective? It seems like the only way the stuff in the video works is by being put on thick enough to block out IR light from reflecting back from the headlight reflector. When it is that thick is essentially blocks out the headlight from shining through. I would think black paint, or even plasti dip sprayed over the headlight to completely block it out would be more effective. At least then you could just peel the dip off if you were doing a day time road trip. Is my theory incorrect here?


Yes and no. If you notice in the video it does not block out the IR from my IR illuminators on the camera whereas flat black paint would. The point is it should ABSORB 905nm light not block it. I think Veil does do this, but it takes too much product to get enough absorption to make a difference.

RedRocket
03-20-2015, 09:52 AM
Do you have a Laser Shield plate cover that you can use to test OnTRack's Laser Shield doing the same thing?


I don't have one, but I can certainly acquire one and test it.Here's a pre-View of what you may see. While this was done w/ a 650nm "visible" RED Laser Pointer (w/ & w/o Veil G4) it has similar diffusion characteristics w/ a "real" IR beam from a Speed Lidar.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wza9XddSPYM#t=57

BestRadarDetectors
03-20-2015, 09:56 AM
Here's a pre-View of what you may see. While this was done w/ a 650nm "visible" RED Laser Pointer (w/ & w/o Veil G4) it has similar diffusion characteristics w/ a "real" IR beam from a Speed Lidar.


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

The Only Sarge
03-20-2015, 10:03 AM
Yes and no. If you notice in the video it does not block out the IR from my IR illuminators on the camera whereas flat black paint would. The point is it should ABSORB 905nm light not block it. I think Veil does do this, but it takes too much product to get enough absorption to make a difference.

As a winner in the Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Rally......this entire Veil thing really gets me excited.....as you can probably tell and let me explain.
They treat RA with Chemo. It aint fun. It sucks bathwater. But if you want even a chance of beating RA you have to bring out the big guns.
Now there is a significant market of "products" claiming to beat RA all natural and without all the side effects.
Black Cherries, Fish Oil etc. Natural inflammation managers if you will. Problem is you would have to eat the equivalent of 14 boat loads of cherries a day to see any benefit and of course that is unreasonable. These all natural "solutions" use their testing science to prove their product works. They just leave out the fact what they are selling and all their test are not founded in the real world with real world applications to get any type of benefit.
So all this science I see and claims being made are likened to the Rheumatoid Arthritis all natural "remedies". Just not based in the real world and when challenged with real world applications soon are exposed as nothing more than bogus science and testing.....to get your money. Most of the snake oil solutions are priced relatively cheap compared to the "big gun" solutions. This to qualify (in the average guys mind) that if i spend just this small amount and it doesn't work then I really haven't lost that much. And the snake oil (RA) sales people rake it in.

To be clear....I am not calling Bob or Veil Guy a snake oil salesman. I do see similarities and just wanted to share my thoughts on the entire claims/counter claims on the viability of a carbon based product that you smear on your car and it helps you avoid a laser shot ticket.....in the real world.

Guys like Mirage and RALTEC sort through the bogus science/claims/counter claims and present the average knucklehead (such as myself) with easy to read/understand... real world results. Then leave it up to you if you think the benefits=cost.

And for the record Chemo works on RA.

kasher1979
03-20-2015, 11:28 AM
Great testing Mirage. Between both you and Vortex I believe we see all that we need to see about Veil to make informed decisions about it's effectiveness. These results speak for themselves. Like you said we have been hard on VG, but now we will see if he will accept these results and commit to making the product usable. I sure hope so. This could really be a great thing to use if it worked well without being like basically putting black paint on your headlights.

kasher1979
03-20-2015, 11:31 AM
As a winner in the Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Rally......this entire Veil thing really gets me excited.....as you can probably tell and let me explain.
They treat RA with Chemo. It aint fun. It sucks bathwater. But if you want even a chance of beating RA you have to bring out the big guns.
Now there is a significant market of "products" claiming to beat RA all natural and without all the side effects.
Black Cherries, Fish Oil etc. Natural inflammation managers if you will. Problem is you would have to eat the equivalent of 14 boat loads of cherries a day to see any benefit and of course that is unreasonable. These all natural "solutions" use their testing science to prove their product works. They just leave out the fact what they are selling and all their test are not founded in the real world with real world applications to get any type of benefit.
So all this science I see and claims being made are likened to the Rheumatoid Arthritis all natural "remedies". Just not based in the real world and when challenged with real world applications soon are exposed as nothing more than bogus science and testing.....to get your money. Most of the snake oil solutions are priced relatively cheap compared to the "big gun" solutions. This to qualify (in the average guys mind) that if i spend just this small amount and it doesn't work then I really haven't lost that much. And the snake oil (RA) sales people rake it in.

To be clear....I am not calling Bob or Veil Guy a snake oil salesman. I do see similarities and just wanted to share my thoughts on the entire claims/counter claims on the viability of a carbon based product that you smear on your car and it helps you avoid a laser shot ticket.....in the real world.

Guys like Mirage and RALTEC sort through the bogus science/claims/counter claims and present the average knucklehead (such as myself) with easy to read/understand... real world results. Then leave it up to you if you think the benefits=cost.

And for the record Chemo works on RA.

Great post here. This is a great comparison to this situation. Basically yeah it works IF you paint it on to the point it looks like black spray paint on your headlights. Just like cherry work IF you eat like a gazillion of them. Neither scenario is feasible.

Salty
03-20-2015, 11:54 AM
Great testing Mirage. Between both you and Vortex I believe we see all that we need to see about Veil to make informed decisions about it's effectiveness. These results speak for themselves. Like you said we have been hard on VG, but now we will see if he will accept these results and commit to making the product usable. I sure hope so. This could really be a great thing to use if it worked well without being like basically putting black paint on your headlights.

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.

kasher1979
03-20-2015, 12:12 PM
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
03-20-2015, 02:43 PM
'' 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
03-20-2015, 03:39 PM
'' 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
03-20-2015, 03:42 PM
Let's thank Tom & Al team to bring us the ultimate Solution :thumbs2:

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

curmudgeon
03-20-2015, 05:02 PM
What would be an ideal passive solution is a wax absorbing ir ...We Can

"
Wax On, Wax Off" :thumb:

Veil Guy
03-20-2015, 08:46 PM
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
03-20-2015, 10:17 PM
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/showthread.php/7108-Veil-G5-testing-on-a-license-plate-cover?p=49751&viewfull=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:

http://radarandlaserforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3657&d=1426196046

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
03-20-2015, 10:19 PM
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 (http://radarandlaserforum.com/member.php?u=6999) 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.

https://youtu.be/VzoUZRnco5Q

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPSO1urwZ70

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.

http://youtu.be/neeCO03rKOI


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
03-20-2015, 11:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl6AlZbBaMk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14XuksWZjRQ

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 07:07 AM
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
03-21-2015, 07:15 AM
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.

RedRocket
03-21-2015, 08:09 AM
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
03-21-2015, 09:52 AM
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/showthread.php/7108-Veil-G5-testing-on-a-license-plate-cover?p=49751&viewfull=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:

http://radarandlaserforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3657&d=1426196046

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
03-21-2015, 10:13 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:17 AM
There Mirage now has my (very easy to do) patent info and all the filing information on one of my patents.

Salty
03-21-2015, 10:23 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:32 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:39 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:44 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:52 AM
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
03-21-2015, 10:57 AM
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.

BestRadarDetectors
03-21-2015, 11:03 AM
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.

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.

Mirage
03-21-2015, 11:16 AM
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

I know all I need to know about your patent and have for a while now. You have basically patented a mixture of products, but I am curious what vendor are you referring to me being involved with? With respect to constructive feedback, I have already spoken to you about the product during the preliminary testing and you clearly did not take anything I said heart and released it exactly as it was despite my feedback. You focused on ALPR testing and that's all you wanted. You were so concerned that ALPR would be your undoing that you went out and purchased your own ALPR camera after you found out that RALETC had one and LONG AFTER you had already claimed your product would defend against them. You didn't even give me enough product to do a vehicle lidar test. I wonder why that was? That's fine we are going to do one now and We will have HUD results and we will show exactly what is being targeted. I suggest on your tests before you go around quoting PT distances you do the same because without HUD evidence you could be aiming at a tree as far as we know and claiming your product is preventing a speed reading. With all of your deflections lately you are discrediting yourself even more. If you would simply answer the questions posed about your product you might find that the same people you are currently targeting as your enemies might be your biggest supporters. We will see what the results have to say...

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 11:36 AM
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.

3708

Now if G5 worked as intended on this type of test car we would still almost get IPT because is 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.

Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

The Internet has a long memory: https://archive.org/

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 11:37 AM
Well in that case I am going to go chase a calf. Dumba$$ wandered off last night. I can hear her bawling down by the river. I need to get her before the wolfs/hogs do.
Look forward to the test results and y'all have a good day. Salty get yourself better there son.

Mirage
03-21-2015, 11:42 AM
Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG


So basically you are saying you want us to think of this as a whole defense system where jammers, Veil, and other CM's are combined. That really doesn't show what your product can do, but I suppose that is the intent. Just sell as much as you can while people believe it is helping them when they need it most. BTW the ALP system is way more than 83% effective when installed properly. I'll put my car and my ALP up against anyone and I will yield greater than 83% ALL DAY LONG.

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 11:45 AM
I know all I need to know about your patent and have for a while now. You have basically patented a mixture of products, but I am curious what vendor are you referring to me being involved with? With respect to constructive feedback, I have already spoken to you about the product during the preliminary testing and you clearly did not take anything I said heart and released it exactly as it was despite my feedback. You focused on ALPR testing and that's all you wanted. You were so concerned that ALPR would be your undoing that you went out and purchased your own ALPR camera after you found out that RALETC had one and LONG AFTER you had already claimed your product would defend against them. You didn't even give me enough product to do a vehicle lidar test. I wonder why that was? That's fine we are going to do one now and We will have HUD results and we will show exactly what is being targeted. I suggest on your tests before you go around quoting PT distances you do the same because without HUD evidence you could be aiming at a tree as far as we know and claiming your product is preventing a speed reading. With all of your deflections lately you are discrediting yourself even more. If you would simply answer the questions posed about your product you might find that the same people you are currently targeting as your enemies might be your biggest supporters. We will see what the results have to say...

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

Salty
03-21-2015, 11:50 AM
Let me ask a question. Do you think if a retailer is selling/sold RMR they are/were selling a false sense of security or a plate cover hair spray purported to defeat flash back systems? Does anyone here really believe that anyone here actually believed that an RMR device was EVER effective at doing what it was claimed to do? Like since from the very beginning they were offered? Or a detector that has proven very poor at doing some particular thing? Or a jammer that has issues with any gun at any particular time? The notion of having a false sense of security or selling something that leads/lead to a false sense of security can be hairy discussion.

To answer your question I can't account for all of your possibilities of vehicles. The point it if you are going to insist on testing on the worst case vehicles, you are going to get the worst case results (the point of the thing). Thing is though that is only one side (the extreme side) of the spectrum. Why not test the middle and the better side to give readers a full picture of the range of performance of any/all CMs. That's the more complete thing. Then customers can even make more informed decisions, IMO.

I don't believe chrome plays a big part in reflections certainly relative to the headlights and plate. I've said this a million times and I will say it again, a good way to see if a vehicle has an affinity to stealth treatment is to do a flashlight test at night. Walk a certain distance away from the vehicle until the entire front of the vehicle (roof line included) is covered in light. Walk from one side to the other changing the illumination angles. It should be very clear where the weaknesses are.

I also think it is important to put things into their context Tom as well. Closed course testing is an acid test against every CM when the targeter knows full well that there are CMs on a vehicle. In the real-world LEOs target much more casually (although this is changing as they are becoming aware of jammers and how to target in a manner to mitigate them, with advanced ECCMs or not). So short of that new dynamic, everything should tend to perform better in the real world. Do you realize that after more than 10 years of offering Veil that it has one of the lowest return rates for our vendors? Significantly lower than detectors. Extremely low. Also reports of ticket issuance has also been extremely low. Heck, no CM is perfect. I've said this before even RALETCs best performing jammer (three head) running at $1000 before install only yielded an 83% jamming effectiveness. Veil is less than 1/10th of that. If I were to spend $1000 plus on a CM, I'd be sure to want to have more than 8/10 chance. I believe with Veil those odds improve. With WAZE, those odds improve further. With a great detector, those odds improve further. With attentive driving, those odds improve further.

Certainly vehicles that have more vertical/perpendicular surface area particularly when they are white or light metallic (which in effect contain little mirrors) are going to be the worst case. In those cases, I would certainly recommend a pairing. Cars that have a more triangular front end are certainly good. So are vehicles like the challenger and the mustang since the hood lines are basically "flat" and are not a source of return. Headlights that go to the sides of the vehicle also can really benefit. It's impossible for me to test every vehicle out there, color, or shape. All I can say with confidence is what ever the situation is, I believe Veil will always help. It's not always going effective in certain targeting scenarios, but at about $100, it's pretty cheap insurance and if you apply it to more than one vehicle, it's even cheaper insurance. Whether there is sufficient value to someone, is a personal choice thing.

VG

ALP's in real world scenarios will be close to 100% effective as long as the install is proper. However G5 has shown to have IPT's even at distances past 1000 ft, which would mean 0% effectiveness in most real case scenarios. The fact is, anyone running a half decent jammer does not need Veil. And for those you run just Veil alone, are driving with a false sense of security as G5 has been shown by several members to result in IPT.

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 11:50 AM
So basically you are saying you want us to think of this as a whole defense system where jammers, Veil, and other CM's are combined. That really doesn't show what your product can do, but I suppose that is the intent. Just sell as much as you can while people believe it is helping them when they need it most. BTW the ALP system is way more than 83% effective when installed properly. I'll put my car and my ALP up against anyone and I will yield greater than 83% ALL DAY LONG.

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

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 11:51 AM
Well in that case I am going to go chase a calf. Dumba$$ wandered off last night. I can hear her bawling down by the river. I need to get her before the wolfs/hogs do.
Look forward to the test results and y'all have a good day. Salty get yourself better there son.

Indeed on both counts.

Gotta love that we got one of our biggest dumps of snow on the first day of Spring. :)

VG

Mirage
03-21-2015, 11:52 AM
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

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

3709

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

Salty
03-21-2015, 11:54 AM
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

3709

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

Wow...

Mirage
03-21-2015, 11:56 AM
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
03-21-2015, 11:59 AM
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

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
03-21-2015, 12:02 PM
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/resources/Spreadsheet---laser-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.

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
03-21-2015, 12:02 PM
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
03-21-2015, 12:03 PM
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67H930Lgn54

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
03-21-2015, 12:05 PM
I would suggest that @Mirage (http://radarandlaserforum.com/member.php?u=13) 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
03-21-2015, 12:06 PM
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
03-21-2015, 12:07 PM
I disagree with your assertion. There are plenty of examples where this has proven to be true Mirage. Her's just one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67H930Lgn54

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
03-21-2015, 12:07 PM
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.

BestRadarDetectors
03-21-2015, 12:12 PM
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
03-21-2015, 12:15 PM
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/resources/Spreadsheet---laser-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
03-21-2015, 12:19 PM
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
03-21-2015, 12:28 PM
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
03-21-2015, 01:00 PM
'' 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/MRS2012_Final_Paper_UMICH.pdf

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9Ju7dreJQ

Rocketman59
03-21-2015, 05:18 PM
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. :rolf:

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 05:19 PM
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
03-21-2015, 05:25 PM
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. :rolf:

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

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 06:09 PM
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
03-21-2015, 06:15 PM
'' 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/MRS2012_Final_Paper_UMICH.pdf

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9Ju7dreJQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3diYHam2mE

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

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 06:18 PM
I would go further and say you could tape black duct tape over your license plate and headlights and the LEO could still nail your butt with laser.

Tman
03-21-2015, 06:38 PM
About collaboration between us , i completely agree. To put things in perspective , i will expose some historical facts.

When Radar Roy offered a solution to lidar tickets , i bought a Blinder M-25 and a can of Veil .After reading a lot of pros and cons i decided to do a simple test.
I used a led 905nm , a piece of clear plexiglass and a cell camera , i placed a good load of Veil and dried it. I bought a specialised dye certified to absorb 905 nm ,
diluted it in alcool and made a stain on the plexi , alongside the Veil stain. I used the led to verify the absorbancy of both by transparency , the dye was absorbing
the ir but not Veil . I made a 10 seconds video and posted it on RR site , it took few hours to have the video removed , the post deleted and me banned.
To protect IP is full right , to hide\ignore\destroy\discard facts is another game.

The difference here is huge , i can post my point of view\finding and not be banned , i am all for truth , if my findings are proven wrong\un-truthfull i will amend and apologise willfully.



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. :rolf:

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 06:50 PM
I would go further and say you could tape black duct tape over your license plate and headlights and the LEO could still nail your butt with laser.

I have been trying to make this point: that is when a reading is obtainable at whatever distance, it's gong to be coming more from the reflective signature of the vehicle itself not the areas of the vehicle that are treated.

VG

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 06:51 PM
Good man Tman.
Took me 10 seconds to ban RR :)

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 06:57 PM
About collaboration between us , i completely agree. To put things in perspective , i will expose some historical facts.

When Radar Roy offered a solution to lidar tickets , i bought a Blinder M-25 and a can of Veil .After reading a lot of pros and cons i decided to do a simple test.
I used a led 905nm , a piece of clear plexiglass and a cell camera , i placed a good load of Veil and dried it. I bought a specialised dye certified to absorb 905 nm ,
diluted it in alcool and made a stain on the plexi , alongside the Veil stain. I used the led to verify the absorbancy of both by transparency , the dye was absorbing
the ir but not Veil . I made a 10 seconds video and posted it on RR site , it took few hours to have the video removed , the post deleted and me banned.
To protect IP is full right , to hide\ignore\destroy\discard facts is another game.

The difference here is huge , i can post my point of view\finding and not be banned , i am all for truth , if my findings are proven wrong\un-truthfull i will amend and apologise willfully.

I can't speak to what happened on RDnet I assume years ago. For much of that time I wasn't an admin. Lots of banning and deleting happened there ending with Cliff being stripped of his admin rights to stop the practice. Clearly this bothers you and I can understand your frustration.

In so far as being uncomfortable about talking publicly about certain things why not let us have a discussion about tax strategies to minimize taxes. Let's start with your returns. Post them here and let's have some tax specialists here engage in a public discussion with all of us about what you can do to do better. Surely we must have some tax guys amongst us. I'm not a tax expert, but I'll be happy to chime in with my opinions. See what I mean? Some things are best left between yourself and your accountant and the IRS. Oh, you are in Canada. Disregard the IRS part. :)

VG

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 07:05 PM
I can't speak to what happened on RDnet I assume years ago. For much of that time I wasn't an admin. Lots of banning and deleting happened there ending with Cliff being stripped of his admin rights to stop the practice. Clearly this bothers you and I can understand your frustration.

In so far as being uncomfortable about talking publicly about certain things why not let us have a discussion about tax strategies to minimize taxes. Let's start with your returns. Post them here and let's have some tax specialists here engage in a public discussion with all of us about what you can do to do better. Surely we must have some tax guys amongst us. I'm not a tax expert, but I'll be happy to chime in with my opinions. See what I mean? Some things are best left between yourself and your accountant and the IRS. Oh, you are in Canada. Disregard the IRS part. :)

VG

But Bob....TMan is not promoting his tax returns nor is he selling them.

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 07:09 PM
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. :rolf:

Now we have someone who knows a thing or two about what is going on here. Double attenuation. That's exactly right.

90% attenuation equates to 99% double attenuation. 99% attenuation results in 99.99% double attenuation. Very good. And at these points we are at diminishing returns. Imagine what happens at five coats.

99.99999999%?

Know what? You'll still have PTs. Darn! I wish stealth was easier. :)

BTW, putting a light coat of G5 on your plate cover will help even further, it's performance. Tested that ourselves years ago. Don't make it black by over applying though.

VG

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 07:12 PM
But Bob....TMan is not promoting his tax returns nor is he selling them.

So what? We are one big happy family here. Let's help him out. I mean who can't benefit from some good tax advice? ;)

The results will come in from the field. Some won't be so impressive others will be, I suspect. I certainly would be willing to talk about the whys of those results in each case.

VG

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 07:20 PM
Ugh....well.....I guess that makes sense to somebody.......]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/sgtgeek/nutstomp.gif

curmudgeon
03-21-2015, 07:53 PM
WTF does *tax* have to do with this discussion?

Veil Guy
03-21-2015, 08:04 PM
I thought I read here in a post something about reducing taxes.

VG

Tman
03-21-2015, 08:06 PM
Good man Tman.
Took me 10 seconds to ban RR :)

To my dismiss it was the only site discussing cms , as an addict i re-registered under another nick.

I still have a portion of this can , i can re-do the test for the benefit of IRS ...how the money is not absorbed :frusty:

Tman
03-21-2015, 08:41 PM
Curmy , it is about reducing your contribution to the TaxMan...just become a believer...voilà. :cheerful:


WTF does *tax* have to do with this discussion?

The Only Sarge
03-21-2015, 09:03 PM
WTF does *tax* have to do with this discussion?

I have no idea.

Mirage
03-21-2015, 11:17 PM
VG based on your experience how would you recommend applying Veil to a vehicle to get the best performance? Vehicle will have jammers but they will not be on. Also NO front plate. Painters tape will be put down on the vehicle paint and all reflective surfaces will be coated with Veil based on your recommendation. This should hopefully represent the best case correct? Awaiting your response.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 05:19 AM
I think you must utilize the exact instructions for application straight from Bob's website. This is presented to the masses as the application required to get protection. You vary from the published application instructions and you now own the results versus VEIL owning the results. Follow VEILS instruction.
In my humble opinion.

Veil G5 is a water-borne transparent acrylic latex polymer coating that is applied with a foam brush (included). VEIL is easily applied to the most reflective surfaces of your automotive vehicle including its headlights, fog lights, brake lights, directional indicators, and number plate areas.

A single application is sufficient to effectively cover these areas.

Note: Veil G5 can now safely be applied directly to your license/number plate however, we recommend applying Veil to a clear license plate cover as blocking performance tends to improve while be more discreet in appearance. Veil can be thinned with water to allow lighter coatings to be applied either with the brushes provided or with an airbrush. Two light coats tend to perform better than one heavier coat. We’ve experimented and have found that coating the front and the back of a clear plate cover or applying a light coat directly to the plate coupled with a light coating on a plate cover provides potentially better blocking efficiency while being less noticeable to the naked eye.
Publish your results following VEILS application instructions to the letter. VEIL owns those results.

From there you may get a mop and smear the entire front of the car and test.
You own those results.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 05:32 AM
However I have totally lost any and all understanding of any realized protections of following the VEIL instructions after this exchange.
So I have no idea what it is VEIL is supposed to do anymore.


I would go further and say you could tape black duct tape over your license plate and headlights and the LEO could still nail your butt with laser.


That's exactly right and I have been trying to make that point.

VG

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 07:08 AM
VG based on your experience how would you recommend applying Veil to a vehicle to get the best performance? Vehicle will have jammers but they will not be on. Also NO front plate. Painters tape will be put down on the vehicle paint and all reflective surfaces will be coated with Veil based on your recommendation. This should hopefully represent the best case correct? Awaiting your response.

I would say that's correct. Would take a picture of the front of your vehicle and let's take a look at it?

VG

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 07:19 AM
However I have totally lost any and all understanding of any realized protections of following the VEIL instructions after this exchange.
So I have no idea what it is VEIL is supposed to do anymore.

Poorly worded on my part. I will clarify. At some point expect a PT is going to happen and depending upon the type and color of the car, its shape, the type of paint that's going to occur at any given distance. That distance whatever it is, is going to be dictated by the parts of the vehicle untreated NOT treated.

On this last test series with our green civic, PTs happened at further distances when the vehicle's body itself was targeted NOT the headlights. Any lidar gun that tones during targeting in a manner that provides the operator feedback as to how much reflection of its own is being seen by the laser gun, will show this. The LZ1 is I believe the best gun for this sort of feedback. When you target an unveiled vehicle you will get tones. When you target a veiled vehicle those tones significantly drop and often go completely silent until just before a PT is reached.

I believe that Mirage's suggestion that G5 wasn't absorptive enough or it was too glossy and that would be why PTs occur. Let's say the Mirage believes that at five coats he believes G5 is effective at absorbing laser. Ok then, put that on the headlights and target versus using only one or two coats. If the expectation is that performance would substantially improve on any given vehicle, I believe that is a false assumption.

Completely eliminating reflection from the headlights and anything else treated will not prevent PTs occurring. The varing distances will be dictated more by what's left. That's what I was trying to say. I will clarify that.

VG

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 08:01 AM
Well I appreciate the clarity as you had me bumbdoozled there for a minute.
I still think Mirage should follow your instructions per your website. Get the uninformed users experience. The vast majority of users are just going to follow manufacturers instructions and expect advertised results. Are they not?
From there he can/will go further in his testing and try and answer the many variables presented on this forum.
The benchmark should be manufacturer application instructions and the results compared to advertised claims. I think this is the mantra of RALETC firstly.

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 08:23 AM
Well I appreciate the clarity as you had me bumbdoozled there for a minute.
I still think Mirage should follow your instructions per your website. Get the uninformed users experience. The vast majority of users are just going to follow manufacturers instructions and expect advertised results. Are they not?
From there he can/will go further in his testing and try and answer the many variables presented on this forum.
The benchmark should be manufacturer application instructions and the results compared to advertised claims. I think this is the mantra of RALETC firstly.

Yes I agree. I think you found a spelling mistake too. We'll have to correct that.

I would only ask that Mirage start out with baselinung at around 2000 feet. And start his runs from that point. That would help give us an idea how "loud" the test vehicle is. Also where he gets PTs if he gets PTs with his jammers on, I would appreciate seeing those results again with Veil too. We have found that two head systems in the front can become single heads. And three head systems can become 2 head systems. I understand the way the ALPs work that st least 2 heads are needed to defeat advanced DEs. Short of that protection I believe you may be able to get away with a single mounted head in the center with the headlights knocked out of the equation.

If Mirage finds a weakness in our 1st run G5 we will work on improving it.

VG

BestRadarDetectors
03-22-2015, 08:25 AM
VG based on your experience how would you recommend applying Veil to a vehicle to get the best performance? Vehicle will have jammers but they will not be on. Also NO front plate. Painters tape will be put down on the vehicle paint and all reflective surfaces will be coated with Veil based on your recommendation. This should hopefully represent the best case correct? Awaiting your response.

Since Front Plates are required in more than 31 States (The Majority) I think you should slap a plate on the car to give people an idea of the difference with or without a plate since most people by law will be required to have that extra reflector on their car.

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 08:39 AM
Since Front Plates are required in more than 31 States (The Majority) I think you should slap a plate on the car to give people an idea of the difference with or without a plate since most people by law will be required to have that extra reflector on their car.

Do both. If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked. The plate will be your weakest link. If you have a plate cover even better. If you can pitch the plate forward a bit pointing it down even better. MUCH better. Retroreflective plates are specifically designed to reflect IR and magnify them several orders of magnitude in reflectivity. Look at stealth holistically. That's the best approach.

VG

Salty
03-22-2015, 08:49 AM
VG based on your experience how would you recommend applying Veil to a vehicle to get the best performance? Vehicle will have jammers but they will not be on. Also NO front plate. Painters tape will be put down on the vehicle paint and all reflective surfaces will be coated with Veil based on your recommendation. This should hopefully represent the best case correct? Awaiting your response.

I understand your reasoning to doing this for testing purposes, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone would do this in real life.

Tman
03-22-2015, 08:54 AM
Précision : rétro paint is designed to reflect back to source from any angle decreasingly up to 80 degrees +/-.

BestRadarDetectors
03-22-2015, 09:00 AM
Do both. If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked. The plate will be your weakest link. If you have a plate cover even better. If you can pitch the plate forward a bit pointing it down even better. MUCH better. Retroreflective plates are specifically designed to reflect IR and magnify them several orders of magnitude in reflectivity. Look at stealth holistically. That's the best approach.

VG

Why is stuff like this not on your own FAQ Pages? http://www.stealthveil.com/faq
Stuff like "If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked." is stuff that people buying the product need to know when they install G5.

You have plenty of other stuff on your FAQ's which me might start a debate about at another time such as:

Q. Can Veil G5 really outperform laser jammers?
A. Yes, in a growing number of circumstances.

But I dont see anything showing the limitations of G5.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 09:04 AM
The Public Claims
Imagine driving a vehicle that’s invisible.
You can now with Veil.

Major benefits of driving with Veil G5:
Reduces the targeting range of all police lasers, making it harder to obtain your speed
Helps prevent your plate from being identified by IR photo enforcement and ALPR systems
Protects your headlights from long-term UV damage and oxidation

The application instructions to achieve the claims.

How do I apply Veil G5 to my vehicle?
Veil G5 is a water-borne transparent acrylic latex polymer coating that is applied with a foam brush (included). VEIL is easily applied to the most reflective surfaces of your automotive vehicle including its headlights, fog lights, brake lights, directional indicators, and number plate areas.

A single application is sufficient to effectively cover these areas.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 09:12 AM
And for the record I want me one of them invisible vehicles. My wifes girlfriends tell her when they see my truck at WhatABurger......I get in trouble.

BestRadarDetectors
03-22-2015, 09:14 AM
I understand your reasoning to doing this for testing purposes, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone would do this in real life.

I actually must have skipped over the painters tape comment... I cant believe he is going to tape the whole front end of his Camaro with tape and then put G5 over the whole front end for testing. That is pretty crazy.

juyer
03-22-2015, 09:20 AM
in Europe the white highly retro-reflective plate is so much reflective, that even if I shoot from angle bugger that 45 degree by a toy, red laser I have my whole hand back lighted in red.
VL, will it be possible to paint the plate with new generation of Veil.
Whats more, the plate in Europe must be not cover (require by law).

http://www.germancarblog.com/uploaded_images/porschepanamera-777162.jpg

Salty
03-22-2015, 09:23 AM
I actually must have skipped over the painters tape comment... I cant believe he is going to tape the whole front end of his Camaro with tape and then put G5 over the whole front end for testing. That is pretty crazy.

Not only is it crazy, but for G5 to perform acceptably only with tape all over the front end of the car is not acceptable.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 09:33 AM
Of course I do not speak for Mirage......I would suspect the man (Mirage) is showing both ends of the spectrum. Extreme on the low end being the manufacturer application instructions and results to the other end of the extreme....and the results.

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 09:38 AM
Not only is it crazy, but for G5 to perform acceptably only with tape all over the front end of the car is not acceptable.

Is that what he meant? I took that as taping off painted areas. NOT the whole vehicle!

Since G5 can go on paint now, I would suggest to eith tape off certain sections after Veil was conventionally tested. Look at what other areas are hurting you. Rerun them and then determine which portions of the vehicle are the culprit. If the overall performance isn't good, I would say augment the vehicle with jammer heads close to those areas.

VG

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 09:54 AM
Why is stuff like this not on your own FAQ Pages? http://www.stealthveil.com/faq
Stuff like "If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked." is stuff that people buying the product need to know when they install G5.

You have plenty of other stuff on your FAQ's which me might start a debate about at another time such as:

Q. Can Veil G5 really outperform laser jammers?
A. Yes, in a growing number of circumstances.

But I dont see anything showing the limitations of G5.

I'll look at it again. The site is still a work in progress. We had something like that on the old laser veil site.

If there are those interested in maximizing their odds getting a darker car than a lighter one is better. That applies to using any/all CMs and actually RADAR and shape really can help here too.

When jammers have IPTs that statement is true: After LIs/Blinders starting failing with the DEs.

I'm going to back off here as Sarge suggested. You guys have at it.

VG

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 09:56 AM
Of course I do not speak for Mirage......I would suspect the man (Mirage) is showing both ends of the spectrum. Extreme on the low end being the manufacturer application instructions and results to the other end of the extreme....and the results.

That's all I ask for. Show both sides of the spectrum. Not only the worst case. That's the one thing I like about some of RT's meets. Testing out on a lot of different vehicles used by our community. A lot is learned from that.

VG

Veil Guy
03-22-2015, 10:46 AM
Why is stuff like this not on your own FAQ Pages? http://www.stealthveil.com/faq
Stuff like "If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked." is stuff that people buying the product need to know when they install G5.

You have plenty of other stuff on your FAQ's which me might start a debate about at another time such as:

Q. Can Veil G5 really outperform laser jammers?
A. Yes, in a growing number of circumstances.

But I dont see anything showing the limitations of G5.

With respect to marketing claims and truths (or mistruths) consider the following "marketing/sales" language:

Rocky Mountain Radar

The RMR C450 and RMR C430 will scramble all radar and laser signals from police radar or laser gun returning a blocked signal. Thus, making it virtually impossible for police to read your vehicles spped...laser jamming portion cover the front of your vehicle 180 degrees for unbeatable protection...Completely legal in all states...

Here's another gem:

OnTrack Photo Stopper Photo Blocker Spray

The Photot Stopper Spray Reflects photo radar flash. Spray it and make your license plate invisible to cameras. Proven to beat photo radar cameras

How's that for truth in advertising? I believe I recall privately communicating with this vendor on multiple occasions that they were doing our community a real disservice and advised to drop them. Guess we've come a long way from those days...haven't we?

Cheers.

VG

BestRadarDetectors
03-22-2015, 11:06 AM
With respect to marketing claims and truths (or mistruths) consider the following "marketing/sales" language:

Rocky Mountain Radar

The RMR C450 and RMR C430 will scramble all radar and laser signals from police radar or laser gun returning a blocked signal. Thus, making it virtually impossible for police to read your vehicles spped...laser jamming portion cover the front of your vehicle 180 degrees for unbeatable protection...Completely legal in all states...

Here's another gem:

OnTrack Photo Stopper Photo Blocker Spray

The Photot Stopper Spray Reflects photo radar flash. Spray it and make your license plate invisible to cameras. Proven to beat photo radar cameras

How's that for truth in advertising? I believe I recall privately communicating with this vendor on multiple occasions that they were doing our community a real disservice and advised to drop them. Guess we've come a long way from those days...haven't we?

Cheers.

VG

You dont know when to stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. I assume you are referring to a website I purchased 10+ years ago when I bought an electronics company that sold all sorts of electronics and consisted of 20+ websites selling Cameras, TV's, Car Electronics Etc. The difference is when I started to focus on Radar Detectors and dropped the other 20+ websites that I purchased over time I started testing products I sold and dumped all products that did not live up to their claims. I was not a manufacture for RMR or a Manufacture for Ontrack, YOU are the owner of VEIL Corporation and YOU solely are responsible for the claims that you pass on to your customers, distributors and retailers. There is a major difference here.

awj223
03-22-2015, 12:02 PM
Do both. If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked. The plate will be your weakest link. If you have a plate cover even better. If you can pitch the plate forward a bit pointing it down even better. MUCH better. Retroreflective plates are specifically designed to reflect IR and magnify them several orders of magnitude in reflectivity. Look at stealth holistically. That's the best approach.

VG
But one issue is that plate covers are illegal in CA, DC, IL, KS, MO, NY, and SC. That's 26.9% of the US population by current estimates.

Furthermore, AZ, DE, IN, IA, MA, NJ, NC, OH, TN, TX, and VA outlaw covers if they "obscure visibility", "reduce reflectivity", "are opaque", etc. If we add those to the above total, we get 57.2% of the US population by current estimates.


I understand your reasoning to doing this for testing purposes, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone would do this in real life.

I still think it's valuable info from a testing perspective. If you're getting PTs because other parts of the car are reflecting, then it's not VG's fault...so long as he includes a notice on the product that you'd better find ways to reduce reflectivity of the parts of the car that aren't covered by Veil. If you want to find out how effective the Veil really is, then you'd run a test with all other parts of the car covered with tape or some other material, but the plate and headlights exposed as usual, then put Veil on and run the test again. The more variables you can eliminate from the equation, the easier it is to figure out how effective Veil really is. Of course, photos of what the headlights and plate look like to the naked eye are also important, so you know whether the application used was really practical.

Salty
03-22-2015, 12:15 PM
But one issue is that plate covers are illegal in CA, DC, IL, KS, MO, NY, and SC. That's 26.9% of the US population by current estimates.

Furthermore, AZ, DE, IN, IA, MA, NJ, NC, OH, TN, TX, and VA outlaw covers if they "obscure visibility", "reduce reflectivity", "are opaque", etc. If we add those to the above total, we get 57.2% of the US population by current estimates.



I still think it's valuable info from a testing perspective. If you're getting PTs because other parts of the car are reflecting, then it's not VG's fault...so long as he includes a notice on the product that you'd better find ways to reduce reflectivity of the parts of the car that aren't covered by Veil. If you want to find out how effective the Veil really is, then you'd run a test with all other parts of the car covered with tape or some other material, but the plate and headlights exposed as usual, then put Veil on and run the test again. The more variables you can eliminate from the equation, the easier it is to figure out how effective Veil really is. Of course, photos of what the headlights and plate look like to the naked eye are also important, so you know whether the application used was really practical.

I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose. A LEO will shoot whatever part of the car to get a reading. They don't always just hit the plate or headlights. I don't know anyone who would put Veil on any part of their car besides the plate or headlights. I do understand the purpose of doing it for testing, but unless Veil is put on the whole end of a car, AND it proves to be effective, I don't see why anyone would put it on their car.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 12:58 PM
But one issue is that plate covers are illegal in CA, DC, IL, KS, MO, NY, and SC. That's 26.9% of the US population by current estimates.

Furthermore, AZ, DE, IN, IA, MA, NJ, NC, OH, TN, TX, and VA outlaw covers if they "obscure visibility", "reduce reflectivity", "are opaque", etc. If we add those to the above total, we get 57.2% of the US population by current estimates.



I still think it's valuable info from a testing perspective. If you're getting PTs because other parts of the car are reflecting, then it's not VG's fault...so long as he includes a notice on the product that you'd better find ways to reduce reflectivity of the parts of the car that aren't covered by Veil. If you want to find out how effective the Veil really is, then you'd run a test with all other parts of the car covered with tape or some other material, but the plate and headlights exposed as usual, then put Veil on and run the test again. The more variables you can eliminate from the equation, the easier it is to figure out how effective Veil really is. Of course, photos of what the headlights and plate look like to the naked eye are also important, so you know whether the application used was really practical.
Not the point whose fault it is.....the entire point here with the testing going on right now and all the discussion is simple:
Does Veil do what it advertises it will do? When applying Veil per the manufacturer specifications does it meet or exceed the claims made on their website.
That's it. Nothing else. "Make your car invisible" with just one coat of veil on the headlights, fog lights, license plate....that is the standard set by Bob's website/ His words not mine.

awj223
03-22-2015, 01:51 PM
Do both. If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked. The plate will be your weakest link. If you have a plate cover even better. If you can pitch the plate forward a bit pointing it down even better. MUCH better. Retroreflective plates are specifically designed to reflect IR and magnify them several orders of magnitude in reflectivity. Look at stealth holistically. That's the best approach.

VG


I understand your reasoning to doing this for testing purposes, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone would do this in real life.


I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose. A LEO will shoot whatever part of the car to get a reading. They don't always just hit the plate or headlights. I don't know anyone who would put Veil on any part of their car besides the plate or headlights. I do understand the purpose of doing it for testing, but unless Veil is put on the whole end of a car, AND it proves to be effective, I don't see why anyone would put it on their car.
Sure, but it's important to isolate what you're testing from other external factors. If someone tells me that their wifi disconnects from their access point and they were running a Bluetooth call over cellular at the same time, the first thing I'm going to ask them to do is to switch off the call and see if the same thing happens. If it does, then there's no point in even running a test with the Bluetooth headset because the problem occurs in isolation. Likewise, if you literally cover all reflective parts of the car body and you find zero differences in PT distance with Veil on the headlights vs without, there's no point in even removing the covering and testing further. Something is flawed with the product itself and it's not blocking IR. I believe in always testing the simplest, most isolated scenarios first, because if you can find a fundamental problem with the simple scenario, there's no point in even bothering to do more complex tests (e.g. on different types of cars).


Not the point whose fault it is.....the entire point here with the testing going on right now and all the discussion is simple:
Does Veil do what it advertises it will do? When applying Veil per the manufacturer specifications does it meet or exceed the claims made on their website.
That's it. Nothing else. "Make your car invisible" with just one coat of veil on the headlights, fog lights, license plate....that is the standard set by Bob's website/ His words not mine.
That's just bad/misleading advertising. But most people with common sense would see that this is absurd. By this logic, any car with pop-up headlights and the headlights switched off and no front plate would be completely invisible by default.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 02:16 PM
That's just bad/misleading advertising...................
We will see. Could be another Dannon Yogurt.
Falsely touting the "clinically" and "scientifically" proven nutritional benefits of the product, Dannon even got a famous spokesperson, Jamie Lee Curtis, for the supposed digestion-regulator. But after a while, some customers didn't buy it.
A class action settlement last year forced Dannon to pay up to $45 million in damages to the consumers that filed the lawsuit and others who said they'd been bamboozled. The company also had to limit its health claims on its products strictly to factual ones.

False advertising is a bad thing. Class Action lawsuits are filed everyday when products are publicly touted to do one thing and fail to do so. Lawyers line up like 12 year olds to a Hannah Montana Concert. All they need are 3 people to claim they have been bamboozled and mislead and Voila.....you have a false advertisement class action lawsuit. Lawyers take these things on contingency.
The term ‘false advertising’, which is also referred to as deceptive advertising, is an illegal action taken by a marketer, manufacturer, or seller of a particular good or service to inaccurately advertise their underlying product. False advertising aims to persuade consumers in purchasing a product through the delivery of false or misleading statements.

And I am not advocating any type of "action"...just stating fact and responding to your comment.
Lets see what Mirage comes back with.

Tman
03-22-2015, 02:50 PM
'' I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose.''

100% agree.
We have Alp , powerfull and sophisticated .

Cant wait to check Mirage & team...real hud results.



For any chrome parts , i would use this , it is inexpensive\durable , it dulls a lot the specular reflection , easy to remove...though only if wife approves the change :devilish:
On paint it turns ugly as well on taillights\headlights.
I did not test on licence plates...anyone would like to do ?
3726

specifics
03-22-2015, 03:08 PM
I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose. A LEO will shoot whatever part of the car to get a reading. They don't always just hit the plate or headlights. I don't know anyone who would put Veil on any part of their car besides the plate or headlights. I don't see why anyone would put it on their car.

This has been my concern with this type product..... unless a person does not care about their paint/clear coat the only place would be headlights which to me is "part of my car" and that only leaves the front plate which sees like a finger in the hole of the dyke...... I remember when I was first getting into this hobby I thought about getting Veil but gave up that idea like a hot potato because there was no way I was going to be able to effectively protect my interest by covering a plate only..... surly wasn't going to slather it on my Jag.

awj223
03-22-2015, 03:53 PM
This has been my concern with this type product..... unless a person does not care about their paint/clear coat the only place would be headlights which to me is "part of my car" and that only leaves the front plate which sees like a finger in the hole of the dyke...... I remember when I was first getting into this hobby I thought about getting Veil but gave up that idea like a hot potato because there was no way I was going to be able to effectively protect my interest by covering a plate only..... surly wasn't going to slather it on my Jag.

Yep, I didn't want to put the stuff on any part of my car, headlights included. Just the license plate.

I really think Veil has lost track of what it should be trying to do. Take this as an example: http://www.stealthveil.com/faq


How does Veil Protect against headlight UV damage and oxidation damage?

Veil not only absorbs IR but it also absorbs portions of solar UV. Long-term UV light exposure coupled with oxidation often causes the breakdown of the matrix of newer composite plastic headlight housings resulting in the unsightly yellowing, pitting, and clouding of headlights that you will routinely see with vehicles.

When Veil G5 is applied to your headlights, a hardy protective IR, UV, and oxidation barrier is created which will significantly slow this deterioration process.

Trying to stop IR and UV at the same time? The problem with that is that visible light is right between IR and UV. It's extremely difficult to come up with a compound that stops both and does not stop what's in the middle (visible light) which is part of the problem we've been seeing with G5 on license plates.

The other problem with trying to stop UV is that Veil is marketed, first and foremost, as a product that stops LiDAR (infrared). For people concerned about yellow headlights, there are other products for that, and they work a lot better than Veil would: http://www.autogeek.net/best-headlight-restoration.html

I've found that applying the same sealant I use for my car's paint to the headlights protects them against UV, and increases the amount of time I can go without having to re-polish the lenses. But paint sealants are supposed to stop UV by design, and don't leave my white car's paint looking dull/washed out/dirty when I apply them because they're not trying to do too much in one single product.

dinkydi
03-22-2015, 04:12 PM
:sleeping:

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 05:29 PM
Guys give Mirage a break here. Not only does he have to apply the product multiple times he has to run the test. document the test, edit the test, publish the test.....

BestRadarDetectors
03-22-2015, 05:33 PM
Guys give Mirage a break here. Not only does he have to apply the product multiple times he has to run the test. document the test, edit the test, publish the test.....

Been out all day with family... The suspense is killing me.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 07:25 PM
While we are waiting.....
We did get some film of Mirage in action on the test course today....I'll post up here in a few minutes.

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 07:26 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/sgtgeek/failcar.gif

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 07:28 PM
We would like to thank the crew for all their help during todays testing.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/sgtgeek/m2galaxytechnicalstaff.jpg

The Only Sarge
03-22-2015, 07:30 PM
Now on your way out of the theater please stop by and purchase one of our books. All proceeds go to me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/sgtgeek/Veilfordummies_zpsjapieqkj.png

Tman
03-22-2015, 09:26 PM
While waiting , i did some tests with banana , i guess the best use for it , is the tail light , it stays relatively clear under visible..
I would not use it for headlights , too obvious , but on red lens it is much less noticeable.
Anyway this is just for fun to play with chemistry :anonymous:

37293730

Mirage
03-22-2015, 10:33 PM
Very funny guys very funny. We are analyzing the results and putting together the video. It will be sometime tomorrow before we get everything published. We took a ton of video and just need to make sure we get everything put together in a presentable fashion as we had some interesting results.

The Only Sarge
03-23-2015, 07:11 AM
While waiting , i did some tests with banana , i guess the best use for it , is the tail light , it stays relatively clear under visible..
I would not use it for headlights , too obvious , but on red lens it is much less noticeable.
Anyway this is just for fun to play with chemistry :anonymous:
I wonder if you cut it with some alcohol it would make any difference?

Mirage
03-23-2015, 09:54 AM
Part 2 Testing Results:

http://radarandlaserforum.com/showthread.php/7193-RALETC-Official-Results-of-Veil-G5-Testing-Part-2

juyer
04-04-2015, 02:01 PM
Yale University scientists have built what they call the first anti-laser, a device that can cancel out beams of light generated by a laser.
[...] The researchers built what they call a Coherent Perfect Absorber (CPA), a silicon wafer that traps and dissipates incoming coherent light of a predefined wavelength.
[...] In other words, just as a laser generates coherent light, the CPA absorbs coherent light. The light's energy is dissipated as heat.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2513259/computer-hardware/new-anti-laser-tech-paves-way-for-optical-computing.html