From: grarpamp <[email protected]> On 3/3/16, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:>> It would have made an excellent jammer. Presumably, better ones exist today. >Plates and lights leaves left only how much beams back from >micro scratches in windshields? Probably very little. The emitted laser power of the unit I had the documentation foremitted 15 watts. Most of that would have hit the car, but only a tiny fraction wouldhave been reflected back to the laser gun. Google search "Lambertian". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambertian_reflectance (The reflectance of a piece ofwhite paper is primarily 'lambertian': It doesn't act like a mirror;nor does it act like a retroreflector.
>And of course that even consumer flat black spray paint >seems to still return some fraction of a real laser beam. I didn't and don't expect that anybody was going to re-paint their car for thispurpose. Disabling the retro-reflectors is relatively easy. >Some locales do have laws regarding plate visibility and >or modification [via overlays / surrounds]. >And some makers do advertise those 3M-like structures >in their plate cover products, some even specifying visibility >width angles in degrees. I understood that some of these modifications might arguably be called in violation of the law. The main one, covering the license plate, seemsto be a minor issue. >But the headlight / retroreflector thing is uncaptured market >at the moment. So like with the plate guys, you should go >for it if you can solve the problem of production for and >application to all the 3d shapes of those lights / retros on >vehicle models. I don't know how big the laser radar market currently is. When I did the research in 1990-91, it was not clear how big an issue it would eventuallybe.
