NEWS: SensorCould Detect Concealed Weapons Without X-RAYS, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 1-8-2005 @ 05:35 PM by Astronomer68

A new sensor being patented by Ohio State University can see concealed weapons under clothing without using X-RAYS. The new sensor doesn't have to transmit any kind of signal to work instead it uses ambient background radiation reflected off different objects to get a clear picture of them. It could potentially even let combat pilots identify enemy aircraft without revealing their own location. Unlike RADAR and X-RAY scanners the new sensor will pose zero health risk to people being scanned or even allow them to know they are being scanned. The sensor thus has clear advantages over existing sensors both for the scanee and the scanor. It's potential uses in law enforcement and combat operations alone are staggering.

www.physorg.com
here is always a certain amount of radiation – light, heat, and even microwaves – in the environment. Every object – the human body, a gun or knife, or an asphalt runway – reflects this ambient radiation differently.

Once the sensor is further developed, it could be used to scan people or luggage without subjecting them to X-rays or other radiation. And if the sensor were embedded in an airplane nose, it might help pilots see a runway during bad weather.

“If you got a fast enough response and a high-resolution image, I wonder if you might be able tell one kind of aircraft from another without revealing your location to the enemy,” he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Since the sensor itself does not emit a signal of any kind it will essentially be undetectable. However, since it relies on ambient background radiation to work it will not get as strong of a return, or reflected, signal as an active RADAR or X-RAY transmitter would. The new sensor will therefore have a more restricted detection range which may limit its effective uses in applications such as night and foul weather navigation, air-to-air combat operations and similar situations where range is a critical factor.

reply posted on 1-8-2005 @ 05:48 PM by subz

Sounds alot like the T-Ray technology to me.

T-Ray on ATSNN

But with regards to the potential military applications of this technology. Couldnt it be easily thwarted with even minute radiation jammers?

reply posted on 1-8-2005 @ 05:54 PM by Astronomer68

Subz - It probably could, but since the signals it does detect come from a variety of sources, scattered across the frequency spectrum, rather than from one source, it might be harder than it would at first seem.

This new sensor isn't anything like T-waves except superfically. That's the first thought I had as well.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

reply posted on 2-8-2005 @ 02:58 PM by Phugedaboudet

there's very little data in the article-it's important to know what bandwidth this responds to-visible spectrum, microwave, infrared.

Essentially, a photodiode, or photocell, is just a diode that changes it's junction when exposed to the frequency it's doped to respond to. If their design is a wideband device, perhaps it has a better destiny-a solar cell that is more efficient and sensitive to a much wider band of radiation. Even a modest improvement in solar cell efficiency makes a solar power infrastructure add-on immensely mroe feasable and profitable enough to get the attention of the greediest politicians.

A much better goal than the whole "let's call it a sensor and market it as a security device to milk DHS funds" business plan that would simply place the patents under government/military control.

reply posted on 2-8-2005 @ 03:16 PM by Astronomer68

That was the first question that occured to me but so far I have not been able to find any additional information about this sensor. As the article states, the thing is really just an intentionally bad tunneling diode. The way the explanation of the device is worded, it implies, but never states, that it is a wideband device. However, it is hard to see just how that can be?

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

Pages: ^^TOP^^