Questioning the General consensus on Alignment

jon5

PSL + (O / U)
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
941
Reaction score
484
Hey Folks, fun question here. So lets get right to it.

So just FYI, this comes from discussion recently about the Poliscan, a lidar based automated tracking system for nailing speeders. Apparently it sits quite off-axis, which presents a unique threat to traditional jammers, which are designed to deal with more straight-on threats from typical Lidar guns.
Additionally, diagrams here are "not to spec" (or even scale, or consistently drawn, it's just meant to give an idea of what i mean), which isn't possible to do generically anyway, due to varying beam divergence on the systems.
This also is premised on all transmitters working all the time. (Which kind of voids the question for the ALP in some situations, where it may disable one or more transmitters)
Also, no making fun of my paint diagrams. :) (Unless you make it really funny, or it's @NPark, since i'm always making fun of your speaker)
The diagrams are intentionally exaggerated, and unintentionally inconsistently drawn, but are just meant to show what i mean.

So, why is the general consensus for jammers to align them parallel? It seems to me that as far as the "output" portion of the system, you want as wide-spread beam coverage as possible. So, would it not make sense to "toe-out" the transmitting beams to widen coverage area?

Below is the traditional way to have them aligned.
s.reg.png

Notice the overlap. (Remember, this is NOT to spec, so maybe there isn't that much overlap?) Yet we still leave the more extreme sides vulnerable, and uncovered.

Now, lets tweak it. If we toe-out the edge transmitters...
s.alt.png
We might get something more like this, which (again this is all very rough and inconsistently drawn) still covers all the same area as the last diagram, but gets the edges better.

So, realistically, if you properly align your transmitters in such a way that the combined beam divergence covers a wider area, while still covering center-mass, why not toe them out?

To that end, what are the effective beam divergences of major systems like the ALP and the Stinger? And in effect, how much can you toe them out without compromising center-mass?
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
10,214
Reaction score
12,557
Location
Hill Country, TX
Manufacturer says for it to work they need to work together and to keep them straight and level. Testing agrees. Seems easy enough :)
 

jon5

PSL + (O / U)
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
941
Reaction score
484
Manufacturer says for it to work they need to work together and to keep them straight and level. Testing agrees. Seems easy enough :)
The purpose of this thread is to question the consensus. Lets not take the wind out of the sails just yet.

There hasn't been that much testing where RX and TX are independently positioned and aligned, which is fundamentally why you can't really do this with ALPs (or really any other system i know of except the Stinger). It doesn't void the topic, which is physically sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gpb

System

PSL ÷ 2
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
5,341
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Alberta
I know some of our Kiwi friends have angled Stinger heads for this exact reason. Hopefully one of them chimes in soon!
 

STS-134

Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
9,926
Reaction score
8,413
Location
Saratoga, CA
Human eyes face the same direction. Many prey animals have their eyes on the sides of their heads, in a toe-out position. This gives them better all around vision, at the cost of depth perception. Humans have way better vision with two eyes on an object than with one. We can see more detail, like its distance from us. Your assumption, if you put your jammer heads toe out, is that they aren't working together.
 

jon5

PSL + (O / U)
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
941
Reaction score
484
Eyes do not emit light. This is about interference transmission only.

FYI, this topic is primarily theoretical, no need for hard evidence, just exploring the science vs accepted conventions.
 

thebravo

Security Detachment
Security
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
10,403
Location
FL (formerly CT)
Edited out my original post: Until this is elevated all I will say is it comes down to some right triangle geometry and some basic principles of optics (hey I'm finally using that optics course I had to take in college for something :) ) Once Elevated I will restore my original post.
 
Last edited:

Choose Life

35.5 hater R3 Day One User
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
8,109
Reaction score
9,395
Location
Charlotte North Carolina
This needs to be elevated
 

thebravo

Security Detachment
Security
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
10,403
Location
FL (formerly CT)

NPark

-NNJCTG- Rollin', windows down, music up
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
6,664
Reaction score
6,668
Location
Northern NJ
Those don't look too bad actually!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BestRadarDetectors

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
12,413
Reaction score
28,406
When hit with Poliscan ALL sensors both front and back activate.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

thanks

for all the fish
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
5,833
Reaction score
6,966
Last edited:

BestRadarDetectors

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
12,413
Reaction score
28,406
Stinger has separate T/R heads. You know the answer, but you may not realize it...



Are you referring to Stinger or ALP?
I responded to a post about the ALP. The ALP initiates all sensors for Poliscan detections.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

jon5

PSL + (O / U)
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
941
Reaction score
484
The Stinger's side lasers are for ENRADD. That's a very specific implementation for a very specific threat.

Thanks for info about ALP, but this is only spurred by Poliscan conversation, not actually about dealing with the Poliscan. It's about interfering with any severely off-axis lidar threat, which may otherwise not be handled with traditional alignment.

Also, don't know how to elevate it? Move to Intermediate Place?
 

RedRocket

Lidar Shootist
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
4,182
Reaction score
4,693
Location
USA
Hey Folks, fun question here. So lets get right to it.

So just FYI, this comes from discussion recently about the Poliscan, a lidar based automated tracking system for nailing speeders. Apparently it sits quite off-axis, which presents a unique threat to traditional jammers, which are designed to deal with more straight-on threats from typical Lidar guns.
Additionally, diagrams here are "not to spec" (or even scale, or consistently drawn, it's just meant to give an idea of what i mean), which isn't possible to do generically anyway, due to varying beam divergence on the systems.
This also is premised on all transmitters working all the time. (Which kind of voids the question for the ALP in some situations, where it may disable one or more transmitters)
Also, no making fun of my paint diagrams. :) (Unless you make it really funny, or it's @NPark, since i'm always making fun of your speaker)
The diagrams are intentionally exaggerated, and unintentionally inconsistently drawn, but are just meant to show what i mean.

So, why is the general consensus for jammers to align them parallel? It seems to me that as far as the "output" portion of the system, you want as wide-spread beam coverage as possible. So, would it not make sense to "toe-out" the transmitting beams to widen coverage area?- You misunderstand, it is not a general consensus but rather a requirement based on the principle upon which the AL performs its designed feature !

Below is the traditional way to have them aligned.
View attachment 54906

Notice the overlap. (Remember, this is NOT to spec, so maybe there isn't that much overlap?) Yet we still leave the more extreme sides vulnerable, and uncovered.- Overlap is already occurring b/c of the principles directly related to the "Inverse Square Law" effects.

Now, lets tweak it. If we toe-out the edge transmitters...
View attachment 54907
We might get something more like this, which (again this is all very rough and inconsistently drawn) still covers all the same area as the last diagram, but gets the edges better.

So, realistically, if you properly align your transmitters in such a way that the combined beam divergence covers a wider area, while still covering center-mass, why not toe them out?

To that end, what are the effective beam divergences of major systems like the ALP and the Stinger? And in effect, how much can you toe them out without compromising center-mass?
If you were to 'toe' them out it would negate the defense established by the deliberate design of the 'Priority' system.

The divergence specification has been previously published from AntiLaser & can be found if you make the effort.
 
Last edited:

jon5

PSL + (O / U)
Advanced User
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
941
Reaction score
484
If you were to 'toe' them out it would negate the defense established by the deliberate design of the 'Priority' system.

The divergence specification has been previously published from AntiLaser & can be found if you make the effort.
This is about jamming theory, not about how ALP does it. Maybe I've not been clear that this isnt about any specific jamming implementation (Like ALP or Stinger, etc), but rather about a theoretical jamming system. Sorry for being confusing!
Unfortunately, i can't find the beam divergence of the ALP (i did look..), but it doesnt really matter if ALPs implementation doesnt allow toeing. I'd still be curious, though.
I'd also love to know the beam divergence on the stinger TX squares.

The question - assuming your jammer's (generic) individual transmitters each transmit the same signal, is there any plausible reason that toeing would negatively affect jamming performance.
At the end of the day, the idea of jamming is to get the attacker's device to receive your jamming pulses and be confused by them. Fundamentally, a wider coverage area for jamming pulses must be an advantage. (All other things being even) Is that not true?

Once we get past theory, implementation can be discussed:
I get that you cant do this with ALP. The engineered design doesnt allow it. Not knowing the specifics, I'd say that was because of how it deals with complex guns like DETC. (Disabling the wrong transmitter on a system that's toed would be a disaster - eg disabling driver side transmitter while cop is on driver side edge of road)
But what about the Stinger? If all the TX fire at once (big if, but i think it's true), toeing should not harm performance, agreed?
What about brute-force jammers? This is even more simple to say wider coverage works better - as long as the signal is strong enough at all points where the attacker is.
 
Last edited:

schissler

Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
2,912
Reaction score
3,048
Location
Alberta/Nevada
This is about jamming theory, not about how ALP does it. Maybe I've not been clear that this isnt about any specific jamming implementation (Like ALP or Stinger, etc), but rather about a theoretical jamming system. Sorry for being confusing!
Unfortunately, i can't find the beam divergence of the ALP (i did look..), but it doesnt really matter if ALPs implementation doesnt allow toeing. I'd still be curious, though.
I'd also love to know the beam divergence on the stinger TX squares.

The question - assuming your jammer's (generic) individual transmitters each transmit the same signal, is there any plausible reason that toeing would negatively affect jamming performance.
At the end of the day, the idea of jamming is to get the attacker's device to receive your jamming pulses and be confused by them. Fundamentally, a wider coverage area for jamming pulses must be an advantage. (All other things being even) Is that not true?

Once we get past theory, implementation can be discussed:
I get that you cant do this with ALP. The engineered design doesnt allow it. Not knowing the specifics, I'd say that was because of how it deals with complex guns like DETC. (Disabling the wrong transmitter on a system that's toed would be a disaster - eg disabling driver side transmitter while cop is on driver side edge of road)
But what about the Stinger? If all the TX fire at once (big if, but i think it's true), toeing should not harm performance, agreed?
What about brute-force jammers? This is even more simple to say wider coverage works better - as long as the signal is strong enough at all points where the attacker is.
You're not widening your coverage area by toe'ing anything. Straight and level is how she goes...

Beam divergence is right on their site.
Widest laser protection angle - ±15°H and ±15°V
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
78,432
Messages
1,193,879
Members
19,993
Latest member
Clamson95
Top