anthrosub
Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy The best way to make your car invisible is to put it in the garage and close the garage door. Do you seriously think any product you can spray or brush on as a coating will prevent your car from reflecting or absorbing laser (light) energy or radio frequency (RF) radar energy? I'll sell you some pills to make your cock reach the floor, how's that? A simple clear piece of plexiglass (lexan, polystyrene sheeting) does strange things to RF energy, it creates a 180 degree phase shift as the RF energy passes through it. Considering physics, the Radar/Laser speed gun's signal would experience a 180 degree phase shift passing through a plexiglass pane, and converesely, any reflected RF passing back thrugh the plexiglass would again encounter the 180 phase shift, making it in phase once again with the emitter's (gun) signal. So what is achieved by two phase shifts of an emitter signal... nothing but you get to keep the yellow receipt with the address to send a money order to pay your fine. Lasers on the other hand have their own peculiar characteristics. Their behavior is predicated upon absorption of light energy, and reflectivity is not critical. The absorbed light energy of a car, a tree, a bar code label is what distinguishes changes in the emitted light. Reflections will tend to cancel light energy, or to balance it... whereas absorption causes little to no cancellation or balance in emitted energy. The biggest fundamental aspect is the time sharing... or the amount of samples per time period. Solid state devices such as Lasers are quite capable of measuring hundreds of thousands of samples per second (sec x1)... per millisecond (msec x3)... even per microsecond (usec x6)... and now even in nanoseconds (nsec x9)... So the available samples averaged over even a single second or ½ second will compensate for color of paint, position of vehicle with respect to emitter, and many other variables I've seen mentioned in this debate. If you can fool the emitters for the entire duration of it's sampling, then perhaps you may achieve the anticipated result. Typically the only way to do this is with substitution jamming... sending a fake signal to the emitter close enough to it's anticipated return to deceive it and make it lock on to the electronic decoy.... and then make all it's calculations strictly on the transmitted decoy signal (false return). That makes a car sitting at a redlight, but showing it is traveling at 55mph a bit suspicous to most speed traps. Necessity is the mother of invention.... making quick big bucks over prolific claims is the mother of marketing... I understand what you're saying...I studied the physics of light waves in college. All I can say is there are audio/visual clips at several websites (not sites selling the product but rather forums where people talk about the various products available). There are unbiased tests on some of them (sort of a product roundup done each year for comparison). The videos show the effectiveness of the coating against an array of different guns currently used by the police. In most cases the ability is cut in half...sometimes less...sometimes more...but always by enough that if you have a detector it would allow you precious seconds to slow down. Ever heard of early adopter/late adopter theory in social science? I think I'm experiencing it here on this thread. I guess I'm an early adopter since I've ordered the coating and will have the opportunity to test it myself in a couple weeks when I make my next trip to New Hampshire. I will be sure to report my experiences. anthrosub
_____________________________
"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
|