From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
   On 3/3/16, jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> 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 for
   emitted 15 watts.  Most of that would have hit the car, but only a tiny
   fraction would
   have been reflected back to the laser gun.  Google search "Lambertian".

   [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambertian_reflectance   (The
   reflectance of a piece of
   white 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 this
   purpose.  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, seems
   to 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
   eventually
   be.

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambertian_reflectance