Please refer to RALETC JAMMER FEST FEATURING THE AL PRIORITY for the laser jammers, course, and vehicle used in this test.



RALETC had the opportunity to test the Blinder Hp-905, Laser Interceptor 8.9, and the Antilaser Priority against three Laser Ally LIDAR guns.  DALA#1 is the same gun as Laser Ally Gun 1 ECCM ON, and DALA#2 is the same gun as Laser Ally Gun 2 ECCM ON in the testing done on July 16, 2012  ECCTG Blinder HP 905 Test Featuring the Laser Ally (DALA) and Truspeed S  These two DALA’s did not have any firmware update between tests.  DALA#3 is a newer version that was not available for prior testing.  All DALAs were tested with ECCM on, and not in Weather or Obstruction Mode.







DALA#1 and DALA#2 were previously lent to Cliff at Laser Interceptor in 2012.  DALA#1 and DALA #2 was lent to AntiLaser’s US distributor in August 2013. DALA#3 was not lent to anyone prior to testing.


Due to instant punch throughs on the Blinder HP-905 by DALA#2 and DALA#3, the second and third planned runs were not completed for Driver’s Headlight and Center Of Mass because it was determined that the Blinder HP-905 does not jam DALA#2 and DALA#3.  We consider theNot Tested runs of the Blinder as an Instant Punch Throughs.  For those that are going to be critical of us for not doing those additional eight runs, just be aware that we tested three versions of the DALA that day and ten other LIDAR guns, against three different LIDAR jammers.  That is 13 LIDAR guns, times 3 different LIDAR jammers, times 3 specific targeted areas on the vehicle, times 3 runs per each, minus 8 not tested runs for the Blinder for a total of 343 runs, which doesn’t include the single head jammer testing we did on the return runs.  Our testing took about 12 hours to complete.  Compare that with the recent ECCTG test that only tested two LIDAR jammers, only ran two runs per targeted area for most runs and only tested 6 LIDAR guns.  That is less than half the number of LIDARs than we tested.  They only had 84 runs for their testing, which is less than 25% of the runs we ran for the two head LIDAR jammer test and basing on them completing about 25% of the number of runs we ran, the testing should have taken about three hours to complete.    Heck, we had more runs per LIDAR jammer than they did in their entire test.   That ECCTG testing is more of a few hours  in the park than a comprehensive LIDAR jammer test.



We are disappointed by Blinder’s failure to provide firmware updates to address the versions of the Dragon Eye Technology LIDAR DALA Laser Ally that we know they have or have had access to. Additionally we know that they are in possession of the Dragon Eye Technology Compact, and and are upset that they haven’t released firmware to jam this new LIDAR.


Back when I and RadarRob were members of ECCTG and we participated in the ECCTG Blinder HP-905 Test Featuring the Laser Ally, there was a third DragonEye Technology LIDAR DALA Laser Ally that was tested that we shall call version B.   ECCTG decided for many reasons that it was best that we did not release that information publicly.  At that time the Laser Interceptor did not alert or jam Version B, and the Blinder HP-905 did alert to Version B, but did not jam Version B.  I regret that I am no longer in possession of Version B.   I did lend Version B to Cliff at Laser Interceptor (for free), then rented it to Blinder and later sold it.  At this time we know that current firmwares of both the Laser Interceptor and Blinder HP-905 alert to Version B, neither one jam it.


Back when I was an Administrator on RadarDetectorForum.org, I on many occasions offered Cliff from Laser Interceptor the opportunity for RDF.org host Laser Interceptor firmwares accessible only by elevated access members of RDF.org and verified Laser Interceptor customers that did not have ties to Law Enforcement, Digital Ally or DragonEye Technology to prevent DragonEye Technology from obtaining Laser Interceptor’s newer jamming algorithms, for the DragonEye Technology LIDAR DALA Laser Ally (Yes, Cliff knows who Dragon Eye’s straw buyers are, and the Security Detachment Team at RDF.org know who DragonEye Technology’s representative is on RDF.org (Specialist)). Cliff always declined our offer.  We felt that if DragonEye Technology was not able to test their LIDARs against current firmwares of all of the current laser jammers, it would benefit the jamming community.   We would have offered the same opportunity to Blinder if they would release new firmware.


We are disappointed by Laser Interceptor for not releasing firmwares to address the DALAs Dragon EyeTechnology LIDAR Laser Ally that they have and had access to.   Back when ECCTG first got our first Laser Ally in 2010, and we provided it to Cliff, he didn’t release a firmware to address it until one year later, when Laser Interceptor firmware version 8.06 was released.  Each time that I have personally lent a Laser Ally to Cliff, an update to jam that version was not released until many months or over a year after the DALA was returned to me.    If just one of Cliff’s customers is vulnerable to be ticketed by this LIDAR, and Cliff has the algorithm to defeat it, he should release the firmware immediately.  To me, by not immediately releasing new firmwares, is NOT good customer service. Additionally we know that Laser Interceptor has at least one DragonEye Compact.  We know that current Laser Interceptor firmware does not jam the DragonEye Compact.


All versions of the DALA continue to be a problem for all current Laser Jammers.  All of the tested jammers had punch throughs of over 300 feet.  It is evident that the current technology of using lookup tables to jam the DALA is ineffective.   In the period leading up to our testing we have learned much about how this gun operates.  These guns do not operate as simply as members of the community currently believe.  Additionally, the way  some of the jammers address the different pulse trains of the DALA, makes the jammer overall less effective in jamming each version of the DALA.  When the companies improve jamming performance of one DALA version, often they reduce the jamming ability of previous version.  We hope and look forward to developments by all of the laser jammer manufacturers to address this issue.  The questions are: Who will be first and who will be successful?   Laser Interceptor, AntiLaser and Blinder; we await your reply!


  1. Excellent write up. I can’t say how much the ALPs are a Class A product, for protection and CS, with updates and new products for the system. It has been a pleasure riding with them, knowing that you are protected. I am a regular on most forums, that you have been a part of at one time or another, and must say that I appreciate what you guys do, to let us know the things we think about while driving with our CMs, on a daily basis. I had a pair of HP-905s, but when I heard the priorities were coming, I flipped, and bought the duals, from BRD. I Think it’s great that a community can share and help, for the most part, each other. This doesn’t go to say, that there isn’t drama from time to time. It’s a not an easy thing to get into, and it’s more complicated than most think. Plug and play doesn’t always apply to everything in this field of expertise.

  2. What I would like to know is the jamming capabilities in not so great weather, every test out there is perfect conditions. Try this when its raining or even snowing and road crap has covered the lens a bit. Bugs in summer time, how effective are they then???

    1. Snow and dirty heads can potentially affect the performance, but it would need to affect all the heads equally to cause a problem. It should be noted that it is very important to keep your heads clean and alignment checked regularly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *