1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ThruVision Camera can detect hidden weapons?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by pdowg881, Mar 9, 2008.

  1. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Well-Known Member


    LONDON (Reuters) - A British company has developed a camera that can detect weapons, drugs or explosives hidden under people's clothes from up to 25 meters away in what could be a breakthrough for the security industry.


    The T5000 camera, created by a company called ThruVision, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology" to identify objects by the natural electromagnetic rays -- known as Terahertz or T-rays -- that they emit.

    The high-powered camera can detect hidden objects from up to 80 feet away and is effective even when people are moving. It does not reveal physical body details and the screening is harmless, the company says.

    The technology, which has military and civilian applications and could be used in crowded airports, shopping malls or sporting events, will be unveiled at a scientific development exhibition sponsored by Britain's Home Office on March 12-13.

    "Acts of terrorism have shaken the world in recent years and security precautions have been tightened globally," said Clive Beattie, the chief executive of ThruVision.

    "The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25 meters is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system."

    While the technology may enhance detection, it may also increase concerns that Britain is becoming a surveillance society, with hundreds of thousands of closed-circuit television cameras already monitoring people countrywide every day.

    ThruVision came up with the technology for the T5000 in collaboration with the European Space Agency and from studying research by astronomers into dying stars.

    The technology works on the basis that all people and objects emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Terahertz rays lie somewhere between infrared and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum and travel through clouds and walls.

    Depending on the material, the signature of the wave is different, so that explosives can be distinguished from a block of clay and cocaine is different from a bag of flour.

    (Reporting by Luke Baker)

    Can anybody explain how this works? Any thoughts on if it will ever be used in the United States?
  2. Greell

    Greell Well-Known Member

    i'm going to go off on a sci-fi thought, as I am not a scientist but I have heard of types of detections devices that can detect different densities.

    obviously the metal in a gun is more dense than your average clothing and bones.

    perhaps this has something to do with it? I couldn't say, but that is very cool.
  3. DMK

    DMK Well-Known Member

    Huh. Passive RADAR?

    This thing sounds expensive.
  4. More importantly, it sounds like a hi-frequency bombardment similar to what we use to cook things in a microwave. Infrared cooks things, and microwave cook things, so any frequency in between most likely cook things.

    Perhaps if everyone in England is rendered sterile the decline of their country can be halted in one generation.
  5. Bones11b

    Bones11b Well-Known Member

    I know for a fact that certain soldiers have claimed to villagers that a GPS was a weapons detector. This would prompt persons ignorant of the facts to retreive hidden weapons from their own homes. Pretty funny and effective.
  6. Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?

    -Sans Authoritas
  7. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Well-Known Member

  8. Bones11b

    Bones11b Well-Known Member

    Sorry if the retelling of an experience offended you Sans. I'm sure it was better than the alternative which would be higher up brass not being satisfied with the amount of weapons found. This in turn would sooner or later cause houses to be searched for weapons. This way I got a chuckle, the persons volunteered a weapon winning favor with us, homes were kept intact, and the war machine kept grinding on.
  9. Eightball

    Eightball Well-Known Member

    Heh heh heh.

    Here's a thought--what would they do if they saw a person wearing body armor?

    Though, this sounds like "harassment central" to me. "Why do you have that gun?" "What gun?" "That one" "For defense.....(etc)" or "Why do you have that body armor?" "For defense" "From what?" etc....
  10. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Well-Known Member

    EVERY frequency will cook things if you apply enough power, including visible electromagnetic radiation--ie light. Terahertz wavelengths are below visible light. Its deep IR but above microwave (which is in the GHz range).
  11. fchavis

    fchavis Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is sort of a black body radiation detector. It can't really see weapons or explosives, just the difference between them and a person's body. The shape is noticeable in contrast. It should also be completely passive, working on the same principals as normal ccd cameras. I think the fourth amendment is going to be tried to the limits in the near future.
  12. inkhead

    inkhead Well-Known Member

    Actually this already exists, it's based upon square reflection of light instead of refraction. Google Lobster eyes see-thru. And you'll found out all about it. I've actually seen a unit used, they do have some portables, and yes it sees firearms, it sees clearly with different focus levels through about anything that isn't 6 inch of solid steel. It sees though lead, and especially highlights items with metal well.

    These devices are great because they use a lot less radiation.
  13. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Well-Known Member

    It takes highly energetic wavelengths to see through incredibly dense materials like lead or 6" of steel. Highly energetic wavelengths...like hard x-rays (100kv+) That is why such materials are used to begin with in nuclear environments...to shield against damaging particle and electromagnetic radiation.

    The technology inkhead speaks of cannot be the same thing this article speaks of because the high energy levels required to see through half a foot of steel is definitely NOT a passive sensor device. The wimpy x-rays at the dentist or doctor's office operate the tubes at under 100kV and they won't resolve through simple titanium implants. If someone is aiming a radiological device at you that can resolve through a steel vault door, say hello to cancer.
  14. TSinVT

    TSinVT Member

    X-rays and nuclear radiation are particle based. That is why you would need immense energy levels to pass through dense material. Magnetism is wave based and is not generally affected by dense objects. Put your compass inside a safe, I bet it still works.
  15. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Well-Known Member

    TSinVT said:
    Wrong. X-ray is electromagnetic. Gamma radiation is electromagnetic. Alpha and beta decay is particle-based radiation.

    Also if you put a compass inside a steel box (or any material that has reasonable magnetic permeability factor), you just effectively magnetically shielded it from the outside world. Magnetic shielding is a popular and well known science that has trickled down to consumer electronics.

    Ever try putting non-shielded loudspeakers next to your TV (hah, well CRT televisions) and then compared shielded loudspeakers next to your tube TV? Tell me which magnet assembly pulls on your electron gun beam more. The shielded unit with the steel bell cap over the magnet assembly deflects flux lines which would otherwise interfere with the gun beam.
  16. TSinVT

    TSinVT Member

    X-ray is essentially a beta particle (electron) with a different energy level. The only difference is it's source. It is generated from valence electrons where beta is nucleus generated. Gamma is more relative to light as it's both a wave and a particle depending on it's interactions and energy level.

    As far as I can remember, speaker shielding had more to do with geometry than anything else. The bottom line is that this camera is a passive system so you aren't sterilizing people with high levels of radiation.

    Edit: You're a nuke worker aren't you? I'm 400 hours from an 18.1 jr Hp.
  17. Sans Authoritas wrote:

    Bones11b wrote:
    My question had nothing to do with offending me or not. I asked what you thought of the objective justice of such an act.

    What I got in return is, "I'm willing to embrace a small moral evil to prevent a bigger evil." Sorry, Bone, but you can try to justify a lot of acts by that logic. For example: "Well, if we didn't slaughter and burn an entire town as an example to the Czech people, we might have to slaughter and burn the entire country. And that would be really bad. And we can't have that, can we?"

    You can't peform an evil act (lying and disarming peaceful civilians) in order to avert an evil act. If you're a Christian who follows scripture, you have to believe that. You can't do it morally, period.

    But if the child-like natives were awed by your superior technology, hey, why not lie to them and confiscate their weapons. After all, if you didn't, you might be coerced to carry out some worse loathsome acts.

    You can go for the rest of your life trying to justify and rationalize immoral acts, Bones, or you can man up, admit they were wrong, regret them, and move on.

    -Sans Authoritas
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2008
  18. Taurusowner wrote:
    We were talking about the ramifications of this technology. That includes the fact that people will be disarmed. Everyone knows people are disarmed by those with power. What is infinitely more important is who is being disarmed, and whether they should be disarmed.

    You'll never get people to destroy this technology, just like you'll never get people to destroy their firearms. Education will prevent people from abusing both of these technologies, however. The best way to prevent the disarmament of innocents is to convince those who would disarm them of the injustice of such an act.

    My comment was eminently on topic.

    -Sans Authoritas
  19. strat81

    strat81 Well-Known Member

Share This Page