32 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPolice Laser Gun Jammer
Leading reported evidence
Run lidatek le30 and a v1
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The principle by which they purported work is to modify the incoming signal by changing the way it is reflected back to the speed measurement device and thus make the speed measurement device read a lower speed.
Leading evidence: 'Run lidatek le30 and a v1' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace way it is reflected back' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I'll have some pictures showing how I tried to make the transponders less noticiable and how I ran the wiring from the front into the passenger cabin.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
After a couple drinks one night with an off-duty deputy we tested my Escort SRX laser jammer - IT WORKED!!
Outcome qualification: Negation, uncertainty or missing explicit repair resolution overrides the raw extraction signal.
Use here)
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I have read that the Blinder has additional coverage with a couple of different laser guns (which aren't used here), but I opted for the Escort name.
Use passports/escorts and have always been pleased
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I've always used Passports/Escorts and have always been pleased.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Replace way it is reflected back
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The principle by which they purported work is to modify the incoming signal by changing the way it is reflected back to the speed measurement device and thus make the speed measurement device read a lower speed.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It has gone off a couple of times, and after the reset (Mute) I was "hit" again setting off my V-1 (which did not go off when the ZR3 did since the sensors of the ZR3 are mounted in the grills of my tt).
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It has gone off a couple of times, and after the reset (Mute) I was "hit" again setting off my V-1 (which did not go off when the ZR3 did since the sensors of the ZR3 are mounted in the grills of my tt).
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Laser (or lidar, for light detection and ranging) speed guns use a more direct method that relies on the reflection time of light rather than doppler shift.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
32 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 1 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T063944Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
The 2/04 issue of Motor Trend has a few interesting tidbits:
1) Any attempt to jam radar is indeed a FELONY offense with up to $75000 fine!
2) Lasers are NOT regulated by the FCC but rather the FDA (yes, you read that right). Hence, at the time of their publication it was not deemed illegal to attempt to scatter laser signals. They state that in conjunction with a detector that they can effectively "neutralize" LIDAR traps.
I believe from other readings that radar jammers are not very effective - generally speaking - this coupled with the felony rap would keep me from even thinking about it (beyond let's say than in a forum).
As for LIDAR, I'm curious. I know the few times I've gone through a laser trap I have not had much warning and have simply been lucky each time.
Hey I live in Canada. Things are different here. Frankly, I don't care if they are illegal in the U.S. I just want to know if anyone has one and if this one is effective. That's all.
As long as we're on the topic......................what is the radar detector of choice? I'm about to make the purchase of either Bel RX65 or comparable Passport.
I have not heard of any jammers that are more than weighted boxes. I would be in, if I had the slightest confidence in their ability.
Also, the general thought is V1 is the best, but I bought a passport 8500 X50 to be different (like the blue LEDs)
i run a lidatek LE30 and a V1.
the lidatek works.
the V1 is the BEST.
great combo.
if given a choice, i wish they would hit me with laser rather than radar - with the lidatek, i at least have a shot at slowing down. with radar - if its instant on - thats pretty tough.
Chicago radio is rife with ads for a "Phazer II" which is supposed to "make your car invisible" to radar. Don't want to screw up the thread, but does anybody have info on that too? AS
Just a thought... they spent all those billions on stealth fighters with composite radar absorbent and deflecting materials when they could have bought the Phazer II. Damn!
Hey, why not just get our hands on some of that composite radar absorbent material and make some custom body panels. The Stealth 996
One wrecked in Maryland a few years ago. If the government had not collected all of the pieces so quickly, I could play invisible man.
Radar jammers for the military have been around for a long time, they call them ECM or electronic counter measures. Stealth is a passive technolgy.
Lidar effectiveness can be diminished by turning on headlights which emit light in the infrared spectrum too. To effectively jam lidar you would need a lot of power since you don't know the exact source. An array of hi power IR leds might do it ...
There was an article about 6 months ago in Automobile magazine by a cop called "how to speed". His advice for LIDAR was remove the front plate (the fine and points will be less for the equipment violation) and don't wash your car.
I have the Escort Shifter ZR3 (Legal where I live)...and it works for me! It has gone off a couple of times, and after the reset (Mute) I was "hit" again setting off my V-1 (which did not go off when the ZR3 did since the sensors of the ZR3 are mounted in the grills of my tt). I have the ZR3 head unit custom installed in the dash with the V-1 remote sensor.
The ZR3 effectively difuses lazer and coupled with my V-1, I feel more secure than if I didn't have it! And i figure that if it works once, it is cheaper than the ticket with insurance increase!
I have read that the Blinder has additional coverage with a couple of different laser guns (which aren't used here), but I opted for the Escort name.
After a couple drinks one night with an off-duty deputy we tested my Escort SRX laser jammer - IT WORKED!! Hands down these DO work and I proved it...However, was it worth $1200 with installation? Debatable.
Drinking and driving with Johnny Law, interesting...... The srx does work on diffusing laser and it can plug up directly to the new passport x80 portable radar/laser detector if you already have one. Radar jammers do not work at all, notwithstanding they are illegal.
i think i'm in a pretty good place as far as being 'stealthy'...
black, no front plate, no exposed headlights (most of the time), small overall frontal area with few flat surfaces.
It is very important to make the distinction between laser and radar when you talk of jamming -- both with respect to effectiveness and legality.
It has been stated above that radar jamming is ineffective (not true) and that it is illegal (yes, true).
Radar jamming devices have come in two flavors -- active and passive. Since radar works on the doppler principle of wavelength shifting, knowing what frequency the speed measurement device is using would allow you to calculate the reflected frequency for any give velocity towards the speed measurement device. An active jammer would emit a signal at a greater amplitude (volume) than the reflected signal from the speed measurement device at the appropriate frequency to make the speed measurement device read an appropriate speed (let's say 55 MPH for instance). The speed measurement device will preferentially display the associated speed with the jammer's signal because it is read by the speed measurement device as a stronger (thus presumably more accurate) signal. Knowing this, it is possible to construct a device to emit this frequency at a high signal strength to "confuse" the measuring device time after time. But this is illegal at the federal level because signals of this frequency are regulated by the FCC which has strict rules on who is allowed to transmit (i.e. broadcast - as in a radio station or TV station) on them. This is done, presumably, to prevent mass mayhem from people using these frequencies to do things like broadcast their own "pirate" radio or TV stations.
The other type of device would be a passive radar jammer. These devices do not create and emit any signals at all. The principle by which they purported work is to modify the incoming signal by changing the way it is reflected back to the speed measurement device and thus make the speed measurement device read a lower speed. Unfortunately, it has been universally found that these devices are ineffective -- probably because it is not possible to modify the incoming signal precisely and consistantly enough and, more likely, because these manuvers (since they are passive) result in a lower amplitude signal being reflected back. The speed measurement device would then use the non-altered (and higher amplitude) reflected signal to read the actual speed of the vehicle. The good thing about these devices is that, since they are passive and not actually generating and transmitting a signal, they are perfectly legal to own and "operate". The down side is that they don't work. Thus Rocky Mountain is able to advertise the sell these passive jammers without interference from the FCC. Why they don't get nailed on false advertising claims, I'm not quite sure.
Switching gears entirely, as alluded to above, laser speed measurement devices are not regulated by the FCC but rather are in the medical laser frequency range and thus regulated by the FDA. There apparently is no FDA regulation against transmitting in this freqency when it doesn't relate to patient safety. Therefore, it is not federally illegal to create and transmit energy in this frequency range (I guess unless you are trying to package it as a patient care device). So active measures to confuse the laser speed measurement devices are perfectly legal on the federal level. Furthermore, since lasers work on essentially the same principle as radar as far as a doppler type frequency shift (just using a very different signal wavelength), active measures are effective in thwarting the speed measurement abilities of these devices. Unforunately, all is not hunky-dory with respect to the legality of owning and operating these devices as several states have gone beyond the federal regulations and made either the owning and/or operating of these devices in violation of state law. The list of states in which it is illegal to own and/or operate these devices is detailed in this thread:
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...hlight=blinder
Some testimonials as to the effectivenes of this class of devices are referenced in this thread on Renntech:
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6000
Hope I was able to clarify and not further obfuscate.
David
Phazer II is absolute BS! The M-20 (2 transponders) and M-40 (4 transponders) (and also the Escort ZR3 Shifter)Jammers are the real deal. They are so real that they are illegal in many places (some regulated by the FCC...Federalies). But if they're not illegal where you are they definately work. They can give you 5-20 seconds or reduce the distance of the laser guns effectiveness.
Reputable(Blinder, Escort, K40, etc...) Lasers Jammers work, Passive Radar Jammers don't. Active Radar Jammers work but haven't been in production since KA Band began to be widely used.
I think lasers do not work on the doppler principle. They calculate target speed by repeatedly measuring the distance of the target from the laser. The speed is calculated from the change in distance per unit of time. The jammer transmits laser frequency garbage so that the change in target distance does not appear to be consistently changing.
You are exactly right. I went digging for the answer and found this explanation:
Laser (or lidar, for light detection and ranging) speed guns use a more direct method that relies on the reflection time of light rather than doppler shift. You have probably experienced the reflection time of sound waves in the form of an echo. For example, if you shout down a well or across a canyon, the sound takes a noticeable amount of time to reach the bottom of the well and travel back to your ear. Sound travels at something like 1,000 feet (300 meters) per second, so a deep well or a wide canyon creates a very apparent round-trip time for the sound.
A laser speed gun measures the round-trip time for light to reach a car and reflect back. Light from a laser speed gun moves a lot faster than sound -- about 984,000,000 feet per second (300,000,000 meters), or roughly 1 foot (30 cm) per nanosecond. A laser speed gun shoots a very short burst of infrared laser light and then waits for it to reflect off the vehicle. The gun counts the number of nanoseconds it takes for the round trip, and by dividing by 2 it can calculate the distance to the car. If the gun takes 1,000 samples per second, it can compare the change in distance between samples and calculate the speed of the car. By taking several hundred samples over the course of a third of a second or so, the accuracy can be very high.
Thanks for catching that. I've learned something new today too.
David
Well, I hate to gloat, but I recently received my Blinder X-Treme M20 laser jammer and it got its first test already.
I had a trip planned to New Jersey for this past Thursday to pick up a hard top that I had purchased for my C4 cab. I had received my Blinder jammer a couple of days before but didn't have the time to install it. But it was now Wednesday evening and it was crunch time. I thought it would take a couple of hours to mount the transponders and at least get the electronics hooked up. By the time I started working it was after 10pm.
As a result of never having worked on a P car before and the mounting options for the transponder being somewhat limited and non-ideal, it took me quite a while to figure out where and how to mount them on the front bumper. By the time I figured that out and mounted them it was early in the morning. Then I took about another hour trying to figure out where to get switched power from and hook up the electronics inside the car.
So I basically pull an all-nighter doing that and getting the car cleaned up a little bit for my road trip.
By the time I'm ready to go early in the morning, the system is hooked up (I promise I will have some pictures of the installation process soon) via a hotwire into one of the interior lights in the ashtray which is also where I got my ground. There is an annoying buzz/hum, but I figure this is a grounding issue more than anything else.
The Valentine 1 picks up a couple of Maryland state troopers along the way without incident. While I'm in Delaware, I'm just past Wilmington on 95 right before 495 merges back with it when I crest over a small hill and not 200 or 300 feet in front of me is one of Delaware's finest standing in front of his patrol car pointing his LIDAR gun at me. The Blinder unit goes crazy (it is quite loud) and does its thing. I hardly had time to slow down to the legal speed limit before I'm passing him already. As I go by, it is clear that he did not get any reading on the LIDAR unit and was shaking his head (probably saying "darn it" or "shucks") with obvious displeasure at what I'm sure was supposed to be an easy nab. A priceless moment in time that I wish could have been captured on video somehow.
No more than a quarter mile or so down the road were no less than 5 more of Delaware's finest revenue collectors gathered on both sides of the highway. By this time I'm going 55 mph and notice their three customers as I tiptoe away into the horizon.
That was the only laser encounter for the rest of the 600 mile trip, although there were plenty of radar encounters, but none very threatening. But the new laser jammer paid for itself and justified a sleepless night already!
This is the 3rd LIDAR ticket avoided for me in the year or so since I've been using these devices. This encounter reinforced a couple of concepts for me.
First, at that range and at that speed no form of radar/lidar detector is going to save you from a conversation with the officer. Since this was LIDAR after cresting a small hill there was NO forewarning as there was, unlike for radar signals, essentially no scatter for a detector to pick up.
Second, at that range, the laser "cone" must be very narrow. I can't quote the numbers off the top of my head, but it's going to be around a foot across, I think. I know that it was narrow enough for the Blinder transponder(s) to pick up (as they are reasonably close to the license plate and front lights -- the two targets law enforcement officers are taught to aim for) but NOT set off the Valentine 1 (with front and rear laser detection capabilities) which was more than a couple of feet away near the top of the passenger side windshield.
Lastly, after driving for a prolonged time on our nation's highway system for the first time in a long time, it became clear that even with an armamentarium of electronic ears and countermeasures, there is no substitute for a high degree of situational awareness and the human eyes for scanning and processing tons of information on a constant basis. Even with all these devices, if you blow by a trooper a couple of lanes over going 30 miles over the speed limit and he doesn't have his radar unit on for some reason or another, you are playing with fire and asking for trouble. Just recognizing their presence and slowing down to posted speed limits can prevent needless expense at the "ticket window".
I'll have some pictures showing how I tried to make the transponders less noticiable and how I ran the wiring from the front into the passenger cabin. Definitely worth the $250 investment for me even if it never goes off again!
So, I continue to believe in the value of these devices and will continue to be a user in the future.
congrats - nice work.
thats one of the most lucid, coherent posts that i've seen anywhere in a LONG time.
the summation of how to 'survive' ticket-free on todays road should be required reading on rennlist.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.