Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,103
    Location:
    Southern NH
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/tc_nm/security_britain_technology_dc

    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.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    Huh. Passive RADAR?

    This thing sounds expensive.
     
  4. MASTEROFMALICE

    MASTEROFMALICE member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    711
    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. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
  6. Bones11b

    Bones11b Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    433
    Location:
    Coral Springs, FL
    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.
     
  7. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?

    -Sans Authoritas
     
  8. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
  9. Bones11b

    Bones11b Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    433
    Location:
    Coral Springs, FL
    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.
     
  10. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    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....
     
  11. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    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).
     
  12. fchavis

    fchavis Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    117
    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.
     
  13. inkhead

    inkhead Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    147
    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.
     
  14. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
  15. TSinVT

    TSinVT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    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.
     
  16. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
  17. TSinVT

    TSinVT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    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.
     
  18. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    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
  19. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    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
     
  20. strat81

    strat81 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,912
    Location:
    Nebraska
  21. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    Strat, it looks as though a shirt that was entirely lined with some sort of fine copper mesh would work just fine. This might allay the likely reaction of the operators to an area-specific opaque area: "What is that strange readout in that one particular area?"

    -Sans Authoritas
     
  22. lbmii

    lbmii Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,017
    Location:
    Overland Park, Kansas
    I wonder if a dense plastic would mask the metal and not show much of an image. I see a market for Terahertz blocking fabric.
     
  23. strat81

    strat81 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,912
    Location:
    Nebraska
    I get ya. But, considering what some people carry on their belts and in their pockets that aren't firearms, they're gonna get some interesting readouts. Pepper spray, pocket knives, multi-tools, flashlights, cell phones, PDAs, smart phones, insulin pumps, wallets, etc...

    The copper mesh shirt idea is kinda interesting! Maybe this will be a reason to wear chain mail. ;)
     
  24. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    Electrons can release all sorts of wavelengths depending on what energy levels you're exciting the electrons to jump to. All the photonic emissions in various wavelengths by excited atoms come from valence electrons returning to their ground state level as you stated. An X-ray of some arbitrary wavelength is not really any different than a strong 656nm band from hydrogen emission because its produced in the same manner, just at vastly higher energy levels required. You aren't going to get a nice x-ray band from an emission spectrum lamp at a measly 10kV of course.

    I see the ambiguity though as the product from beta decay is the electron (or positron), and that electron itself is a particle. However, x-rays are liberated from the electron itself releasing a photon, and x-rays are that photon, and photons are exclusively an electromagnetic radiation. I don't see how the photon released in the x-ray wavelength is any different than IR or UV. The methodology we use to get x-rays is much different, but its still a photon when all is said and done. I don't see how it's a particle unless you're talking about the particle/wave duality of EM radiation, but that applies to the entire spectra.

    When looking at a traditional x-ray tube, the stream of electrons coming off the cathode are particles, and what we have is a particle beam, but that isn't x-ray radiation. It's the interaction of the high energy electrons and the collision with the tungsten which liberates those photons when electrons get tired and give up their energy.

    I probably just made matters worse though by rambling. I like this discussion though :)
     
  25. devilc

    devilc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    Lorton, VA
    I wrongly posted this again in Activism.
    Just as an update:
    DoD is using these in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    DHS has purchased some of these.
    Their corporate website is:
    http://www.thruvision.com/
    A quick Google search will pull up a number of articles about this technology.
    It's not sci-fi nor is it bombardment.
    Economy of scale and another Mumbai or Columbine will see these at the doors of every WalMart.
    Wait for it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page