Rich Williamson

In article <nothere-ECB9F0.14235912102004@news.verizon.net>,
Rich Williamson <nothere@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Does anyone have any feedback on the products found at:
>
> http://phantomplate.com/main.html
>
> I purchased their spray and the plate shield (Photoshield). I am not
> entirely convinced that the spray works. I took some digital flash
> photos of my car at night in the driveway. I found that at an angle,
> the spray worked and obscured my plate. Straight on, it was not so
> good... it gave only a partial or little reflection leaving my plate
> readable.
>
> I asked the company tech guy about it (and sent him the photos), and his
> reply was that a flash on a home digital camera is only intended for
> 10-15 feet, and that the flash used in photo radar is 10X stronger and
> brighter...therefore it would reflect using that type of flash.
>
> I am not sure if I believe this or not...while it may make sense in
> theory,I don't really want to test it in the real world. How about
> daytime traffic light or photoradar...wouldn't that need a lower flash
> level? Does the equipment adjust for ambient light?
>
> I am tempted to respray and add more product, but don't know if this
> helps or hurts the performance. It does dull the plate, and it looks
> like it is starting to build up. I put 5 or 6 coats on the plate (two
> separate plates 6 each).
>
> The Photoshield cover works as advertised... the only negative comment I
> would have is that it is not as "undetectable" as stated. You can see
> that there is something "distorting" the plate if you got out of your
> car beheind me, and were walking up to my car (as a cop would do at a
> traffic stop).
>
> I am unsure if it is truly legal (the plate cover)... while it may be
> technically legal, it might get you hassled for using it.
>
> I welcome any comments or advice from people who have used it or know
> more about traffic light or stationary photo radar.
>
> thanks,
>
> Rich

************************************************** *************

Here is the company response unedited ... any thoughts on what he says?



From: "DavidGreen@phantomplate.com" <davidgreen@phantomplate.com>
Subject: RE: problem with spray
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:18:40 -0400


Dear: Mr. Williamson

First and foremost, I sincerely apologize for the length it took to
respond
to this e-mail.

If you decide to take a flash photo of you license plate after it has
been
treated, don't be surprised if the plate numbers are still visible. That
doesn't mean that it won't work. You see a standard camera flash is only
a
few watts. The speed camera is setup with a 340watt "melt your eye *****"
flash unit which isn't designed to read the number plate, but designed to
pick out your face inside a dark vehicle interior. A standard camera
flash
sometimes isn't powerful enough to produce a "white out" effect. The
correct
way to test the effectiveness of our products is to use actual
photo-radar
equipment. . A personal digital camera is not a photo radar camera.
First of
all, the car has to be in motion. I don't know how you will be able to
take
an image using you personal camera. Besides, the flash technology used
will
not be comparable. The correct way to test the PhotoBlocker spray is
using a
photo radar camera. That is exactly what Fox News investigative reporters
and Denver City Police Department did. As a result PHOTOBLOCKER has
become
the best selling anti-photo radar spray product in the world. To watch
the
actual investigated reports please go to
http://www.phantomplate.com/video.html.

Sincerely
DAVID GREEN

Just Mike

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:37:34 GMT, Rich Williamson wrote:

>any thoughts on what he says?

Check out this site:
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/

I am not connected with this site in any way, other than casually
reading it! They test all sorts of avoidance stuff with (sort of)
police backing. Not much seems to work to be honest - there's also
some pretty good stuff on there about responsible use of speed etc.
It's a private site that doesn't try to sell anything, so it's pretty
unbiased I think.
Mike

Just Mike

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:37:34 GMT, Rich Williamson wrote:

>any thoughts on what he says?

Check out this site:
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/

I am not connected with this site in any way, other than casually
reading it! They test all sorts of avoidance stuff with (sort of)
police backing. Not much seems to work to be honest - there's also
some pretty good stuff on there about responsible use of speed etc.
It's a private site that doesn't try to sell anything, so it's pretty
unbiased I think.
Mike