It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Spying roboflies to get minicam eyes

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Hi folks,

This is far from my area of expertise, however I ran into this short article about these new miniature cameras and their potential military applications, and thought I would share.


A MICROCHIP-sized digital camera patented by the California Institute of Technology could provide vision for the US military's insect-sized aircraft. It is light enough to be carried by these tiny surveillance drones and also uses very little power.

In today's minicams, the image sensors and support circuitry are on separate microchips, and most of the power goes on communication between the chips. Now with Pentagon and NASA funding, Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena has squeezed all the components of a camera onto one low-power chip, revealed in a US patent filed last week (www.tinyurl.com/ojwmdq).

The gadget can be radio-controlled via a secure frequency-hopping link from up to a kilometre away, say its inventors. newscientist


Patent Application

How a camera, a receiver, and flying mechanisms can be incorporated into an object the size of a fly is truly beyond me.

However it seems the days of the "spying flies" are well and truly here.

No more nefarious picnics for me.




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Oh crap. Now we have to be careful what flys we swat.

If you swat a govt fly they may charge you 10,000$


how much more annoying could the govt get than being a fly



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Oh crap. Now we have to be careful what flys we swat.

If you swat a govt fly they may charge you 10,000$


how much more annoying could the govt get than being a fly


By being an exploding fly that can kill you.

Just my opinion.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Amazing tech, no doubt. Though, while the chip itself may be a little less than the size of a quarter, the fully-constructed unit as a whole is significantly larger - approx. 4.2 cubic inches.

PDF


appft.uspto.gov
10. The camera of claim 8 where the volume of the camera as a whole is not more than approximately four cubic inches.


Camera Resolution: 256x256
Range: 3280 ft.
Size: 4.2 cu. in.

No spying flying insects here but still amazing nonetheless.



[edit on 24-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


Hi oneto,

Argh, I'm confused, the patent application says:


TECHNICAL FIELD

[0002]The invention relates to a highly miniaturized camera, and more specifically to a highly miniaturized, low power, digital wireless camera.


But like you said it also states 4 cubic inches, I think we have digital cameras on the consumer market smaller than that.


How do they reconcile "highly miniaturized" with 4 cubic inches?



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I noticed that as well. also, if you look at the date of the original contract for the 3 year research project, "with the resulting device to be delivered to DARPA in 1997" (paraphrased)

Yet the patent application is dated 2007. Odd, that. (?)

It would seem the article's reference is more the chip itself as opposed to the fully-constructed camera deivce.

Me?
I'm curious as to the advances with regards further miniaturization that must have taken place since.






[edit on 24-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Yet the patent application is dated 2007. Odd, that. (?)


Even odder, at the top right of the page it has a May 14th 2009 date stamp.




It would seem the article's reference is more the chip itself as opposed to the fully-constructed camera device.


You're probably right ...

I'm going to take NewScientist at their word and be on the lookout for any suspicious flies.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


Nanotechnology is very advanced now. Imagine the versions that are still top secret.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellmutt
 


Yep. My thoughts exactly.


Better yet... imagine if they went with an approach attempting to match the multi-faceted eye of a fly.


... with each facet being it's own light-detecting unit.

A lense consisting of many lenses, if you will.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

...and be on the lookout for any suspicious flies.

They don't behave like normal flies. They are very much alike, but not quite. I.e. normal flies will shy away from matches because of the sulfur. These flies don't.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt

They don't behave like normal flies. They are very much alike, but not quite.


Well it's better than the current technology ...




On a serious note ...

I would imagine the optics are not the greatest hurdle to such technology, surely the propulsion and guidance systems are, no?



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
It seems that these miniaturized 'spybugs' have been promised for years. We've seen the articles of remote-control cockroaches and theoretical military drones that are as small as birds. All told, it seems to me the concept is greater than the sum of it's parts.

What kind of power cell could transmit streaming video at a strength detectable by satellites or nearby receivers? How long could it transmit for? How sensitive must the receivers be? What resolution and depth of field would be available? What would be the focal point? How much light can be absorbed through a minute lens?



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Israel has been developing that as well [for years], the nano "bionic hornet" also capable of delivering a chemical/poisonnous agent..I guess its better and a little more subtle then delivering a 2000 pound JDAM



Israels Bionic Hornet

I guess its all nanotechnology, probably powered by solar[powercells...

Hehe reminded me of a commercial we had some time ago



[edit on 24-5-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
What kind of power cell could transmit streaming video at a strength detectable by satellites or nearby receivers? How long could it transmit for? How sensitive must the receivers be? What resolution and depth of field would be available? What would be the focal point? How much light can be absorbed through a minute lens?


According to the patent and research contract, this unit is powered by 2 CR-2 3.0V batteries
- capable of a 190 day lifetime due to the power-saving idle/active modes incorporated.

Transmission range approx. 1 kilometer.

Resolution: 256 X 256

for the rest... take a look at the patent claims and specs.

 




[edit on 24-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 
The CR2 3.0V battery weighs a whopping 11 grams. 22g for the pair! The whole spec might be miniature but the power pack could be a little conspicuous. Picture a bug strapped to two of those heavy items...imagine a 1000cc engine hauling a truck up a hill



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'm trying to figure out the disconnect between the patent document and the NewScientist article.

Perhaps NS is referring solely to the microchip sized optical component and relating it to uses relevant to miniaturized drones, and not to the actual patented device.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao

...also capable of delivering a chemical/poisonnous agent

Aha! So that's why they keep diving into my cup of coffee (or whatever it is that I'm drinking)...


Nanotech has come a long way. Devices can now be miniaturized and mass produced a lot more than just a few years ago. I believe that nano-flies about 1-2 mm in size exist today (secretly), and they require much less power than bigger devices. You'll need to catch one "alive" and look at it through a microscope, to see that it's not a real fly.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Did Obama swat a nanotech spy fly?






posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Did Obama swat a nanotech spy fly?




millions in nano-tech squashed on the floor. (?)

if that be the case...

"Now that was pretty impressive. Wasn't it? ... I got the sucker"




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join