ECCTG Blinder HP-905 Test – Featuring the Laser Ally (DALA) and the TruSpeed S


It has been a while since the countermeasure industry has produced a jammer worthy of our praise; ECCTG is proud to announce that this day has finally arrived. We threw a plethora of LIDAR guns at the Blinder HP-905 and based on the results, it’s easy to conclude that the Blinder HP-905has joined the ranks as one of the major players in the countermeasure industry. We will explain our reasoning in this article.


Blinder HP 905 Specifications

– Wavelength/Bandwidth: 905nm/33MHz

– Classification: 1M Laser (Eye Safe); compliant with 21 CFR 1040.10 and 1040.11; compliant with EC Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS)

– Operational Temp: -25C + 80C / -13F + 176F

– Power Requirement: 10V – 16V

– Current Consumption: Max. 150m A (Active), 25mA (Stand By)

– Sensor Dimensions:

— 51 mm (W) x 34 mm (D) 12.7 mm (H)

— 2 inch (W) x 1.35 inch (D) 0.50 inch (H)

Cable Length: 5.2 meters / 17 feet



– Parking Assist / Jamming / Detection, Modes

– Ultra Compact Laser Sensors (World Smallest)

– High Power Laser Diode Based

– Ultra High Detection Performance

– Anodized Aluminum Sensor Housing

– Waterproof Sensor (Rubber Gasket)

– Easy Stealth Installation

– Control Module 4 Sensor Capable

– Internal Audible Alert (Authentic Voice)

– Voice and Jamming Software Updatable

– Personal Setting and Upgradeable Firmware

– 2 Year Warranty


Side-By-Side Comparison

In an effort to give a clearer picture of the performance brought by the Blinder HP-905, we also used a Laser Interceptor 8.9 (non-HP version) mounted in the same location. No jammer was donated by any manufacturer or vendor; each jammer was purchased by an ECCTG straw buyer for the purpose of ensuring no device was juiced or overclocked beyond retail specifications. Each jammer was mounted separately; both jammers were inspected for proper level and angle, and were unmounted before the next jammer was tested. Both jammers were not mounted at the same time.


Testing Methods

In this test, the LIDAR users were ECCTG members.  The LIDAR guns were aimed by keeping the beam centered on each target location for during each testing iteration. “Trick shots” were not performed. Each location was tested multiple times for error correction. If we believed something interfered with a result, such as a reading from another car, we threw out that result and performed that specific run again. These are the true, unadulterated results which ECCTG is proud to provide.

Here is an example of our testing style (note that  HUD-view videos are subject to the parallax distortion error):


LIDAR Guns Used In Testing

We used thirteen guns against the Blinder HP-905 and eleven guns against the Laser Interceptor 8.9.

LIDAR Gun Blinder HP-905 Laser Interceptor 8.9
Laser Ally (“Law Enforcement” version A) (ECCM ON)
Laser Ally (“Law Enforcement” version B) (ECCM ON)
ProLaser III
ProLaser IV
ProLite +
LaserAtlanta SpeedLaser S (Stealth Mode)
Ultralyte LR-200 (100 pps)
Ultralyte LRB 20/20
TruSpeed S
Stalker LR
Stalker (v 3.5)
Stalker (v 5.7)


Testing Conditions

Test Course

A straight, real world course nearly 1250′ in length was used for this test. The shooter was positioned 30 degrees off-axis horizontally from the center of the car. Here is a photograph of the course taken from the exact point of view where the LIDAR operators were positioned:


Test Vehicle

We are using the typical ECCTG test car – a 2009 Hyundai Sonata – mainly to keep results consistent, and because the style of the vehicle is common nowadays (in regards to grill/headlight configuration, etc). Photos of the heads on the vehicle:

Blinder HP-905
Laser Interceptor 8.9

** NOTE: Regardless of how the heads appear in the photos, the mounting was done and tested on a completely level surface.


Results of the Blinder HP-905 and Laser Interceptor 8.9

For the most part, we did three runs per location for the Blinder HP-905, and only two runs for the Laser Interceptor 8.9 (since there has been extensive testing done on the Laser Interceptor 8.9, which can be found on our website). There were a couple runs which didn’t make much sense to us so we performed additional runs (dubbed “Extra Shots” in the results table). After finishing the test, it was clear there was not a leveling/canting issue.

It should be noted that the Blinder HP-905 uses a 75W laser diode while the Laser Interceptor 8.9 uses a 115W laser diode (unlike the predecessor of the Laser Interceptor 8.9, which uses a 75W laser diode). In the end, more power output may play a role in jamming capabilities (at this point in the countermeasure game, no real data exists on this yet), however it is generally the algorithm (on the jammer side of things) which makes the most difference.



ECCTG tests in real world conditions. We aren’t like other testers who use perfectly straight courses or have a monetary incentive to promote a product. We test based on what countermeasure users are most likely to encounter in the real world. The lab, and the real world, are two completely different things. Off-Axis has been known to chew through all jammers, as it has clearly done so in this test. That said, we believe that theBlinder HP-905 could use some work on their ProLaser 3 and ProLaser 4 algorithms (which can be said for the Laser Interceptor 8.9 in regards to the ProLaser 4 as well, however this is an easy fix). Either way,Blinder has truly created a jammer worthy of ECCTG recognition. We believe that the Blinder HP-905 will pressure the competition and breed innovation, resulting in a better market for the casual countermeasure user and enthusiast alike. If you would like to participate in discussions related to this, follow us here on the forum.