It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Now they don't need RFID Chips just some Ink!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:47 PM

Just read about that technology and it sent a shiver up my spine, I was always under the impression that "The Mark" was going to be a tattoo of some kind ( just a feeling ).

This new tech. is in its infancy but its out there now, people would be alot more receptive of a tattoo over an actual implant.

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:53 PM
Nice find MAzzroth. I find this not surprising, but quite disturbing. It truly does make the "Mark of the Beast" a bit easier and simpler. Amazing how it can be invisible to the naked eye as well. Here is a quote from the article for the ATSers who don't want to read the whole thing.

Co-founder Mark Pydynowski said during an interview Wednesday that the ink doesn't contain any metals and can be either invisible or colored. He declined to say what is in the ink, but said he's certain that it is 100% biocompatible and chemically inert. He also said it is safe for people and animals.

The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and a reusable applicator with a one-time-use ink capsule. Pydynowski said it takes five to 10 seconds to "stamp or tattoo" an animal, and there is no need to remove the fur. The ink remains in the dermal layer, and a reader can detect it from 4 feet away.

Nice, just stamp the baby on the forehead when it comes out. Hmm< I wonder when that 4 foot range will become 40.

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:30 PM
This part really caught my eye..

The ink also could be used to track and rescue soldiers, Pydynowski said.

"It could help identify friends or foes, prevent friendly fire, and help save soldiers' lives,"

They seem really intent on selling the idea of "use on humans", but earlier it was stated...

a reader can detect it from 4 feet away

If I were on a battlefield, I don't think I'd want to wait untill someone was merely 4 feet away before I was to identify them as "friend or foe".

I think there are better ways to "track and rescue" our men, and women, than tatoos with a four foot RF range.

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:44 PM
This stuff's interesting. That said, I find the phrasing of the news releases and press material more than a bit suspicious, and I suspect that Pydynowski is stretching the truth here and there. That's probably not surprising given that they're trying to lure in investors, note the part where they are going for class A funding.

My guess is that it has some sort of ferrite in it, and that when he's saying "not metals" he means that in a literal sense, no free metal in the sense that it's sparkly, but it probably has metal ions bound to their ink chemistry, just not in a metallic state.

I could also see how you could read it through the hair with a pen device, and you'll notice they say they can detect it 4 feet away, but he didn't use the word 'read'. Yes, I bet you can detect it but I'd like to see you read it.

In order to read a bar code with a radio source, you have a big issue with the beam spot size and spreading. At the store, you've noticed the scan beam for the UPC bar's really small, right? Well, if you have a beam spot size larger than the bars, you don't get crap for info. Radio can't be focused more tightly than about 2 wavelengths. So either he's discovered a way to scan with a couple hundred GHz signal, doubtful, or he's running his mouth for the funding.

At any rate, a radio beam scan for a subdermal tat would require very high frequency microwaves, very large bars in the code, near contact range or some combination of the three.

They don't have any patents, and no real technical description. Also you'll note that they just completed a feasibility test not that they had a product, so they probably tatted a single bar on a cow and demonstrated that they could detect it.

Worth watching but probably not half what they're claiming.

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
At any rate, a radio beam scan for a subdermal tat would require very high frequency microwaves, very large bars in the code, near contact range or some combination of the three.

Hence the requirement would be for a tattoo on the forehead ? I bet they already have technology/software that could be incorporated into a surveillance camera ( facial recognition ) that allows for an RF transmitter built into the cam to read this information.

Scarey stuff all the same.

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:17 PM
No, it will have to be much much more than just some sort of transmitter mounted on a camera. Remember, this doesn't have any sort of smarts to it. It's just ink that absorbs radio waves of some particular frequency range most likely due to some sort of ferrous particulates they've mixed in to it.

So how do you read ink marks with light? Remember, radio waves are just really low frequency light. The same sorts of things apply, although the means by which you do it change.

If I'm reading a mark, I'll have to "look at" a spot that's significantly smaller than the smallest feature I'm trying to see. Imagine trying to read a print book, for example, when I my scanner has a dot size the size of a BB. I'm not going to be able to resolve letters, just that some sort of print is there. I won't be able to tell if it's letters or small pictures, for example. This is why higher resolution LCD screens on your PC can show more details. What sort of picture could you show with, say, 10 really big pixels? Not much detail there.

The same thing applies to reading some sort of bar code. My resolution has to be significantly smaller than the smallest bar in the code, or it will all run together into a blur.

Since he's reading the marks with some sort of radio device, his resolution is limited, because radio waves are pretty big compared to bars in a bar code. In general, you can't focus a spot of RF smaller than twice the wavelength due to physics. The wavelength of your microwave is about 12 centimeters. So, you could, with a nice dish antenna, get a focal spot of about 24 cm diameter. That's not very small, I could tattoo the entire side of the cow and only get a few bars. I need to get a lot tighter than that! Looking at a book here with my calipers, I see that the guard bars on the UPC code are about 0.87mm. The smallest bars are a lot thinner than that, but I can't measure it with my caliper. So, in order to read a 0.87mm series of bars, I'd need a spot size about half that so I can see the spaces and bars clearly. Let's say 0.40mm for a spot size. The wavelength to scan that bar code with a radio beam would be half THAT, or about 0.20mm. That's 1.4THz, if I didn't slip a decimal place.

That's not off the shelf, and this guy's not using it.

I'm leaving out all the fun part where you have to focus the beam so that it's still small at 4 feet, and how the guy scans it at that distance.

The easy way is some sort of contact reader, where you can have your pickup's size limit the aperture of the scan spot. I CAN see him doing this. That would be something you could go buy.

Like I say, the phrasing they're using sounds fishy. It will be interesting to see if it ends up making it to market, maybe they've circumvented physics in some new way, but this is a technology incubator company going for funding.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:59 AM
Wow. From a scientific point of view, I would LOVE to know how this works. In the article, they specifically said they didn't want to divulge the details of how it worked. It pretty much has to be stored in either an electric or magnetic form, since they can read it from 4 feet away. I wonder if it is something kind of like the magnetic strip on a bank card, only in liquid ink form. That should be technically possible, although I don't know what kind of range that would have for reading it. Or maybe it's something like the ordinary barcodes you see in every store, with the laser pen that reads them, only you can paint it on stuff.

From an ethical point of view, this is just downright scary. If this kind of tech became commercially viable, it might be just as bad or even worse than possible RFID abuses. This kind of technology has to be monitored very closely, because while it certainly has many benevolent applications, it would be so easy to abuse it, as well.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:52 AM
Why is it when some new identification device appears its always the 'mark of the beast'? Get a life people.

The technology, like most, has genuine uses but can also be used covertly. Here's some more Info on how this technology might work.


posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by shihulud
Why is it when some new identification device appears its always the 'mark of the beast'? Get a life people.

The technology, like most, has genuine uses but can also be used covertly. Here's some more Info on how this technology might work.


Actually, that article makes sense.

This Somark guy said he was tatting a bar code on with a sort of dot matrix printer, which I can't see working very well. But if he's just depositing a set of chemicals tuned to give a specific set of frequency dips and not a bar code, then that might work.

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:36 AM
Personally, I have some doubts about this article.

The idea of a "tatooing machine" is suspect in my book.

Applying tatoos in a a fine art, and takes careful planning and execution The idea of a bunch of pins that are reusable with a template for the "stamp" is just not workable. There's no way to sterilize it methodically, since in tatooing, skin particles and blood adhere to the needles because of the viscosity of the ink. Merely dipping the apparatus in bleach will not do the trick. They must be scrubbed and sterilized under pressure.

And if they are disposable needles, then get rid of the template with the pattern, and only load the face of the apparatus with the appropriate needles. But again, the whole apparatus will need to be disinfected after each use.

top topics


log in