Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: The T5000 camera making weapon concealment obselete.

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Pretty wild stuff, you might as well OC, when this technology becomes widespread.
    I'm real curious what the imagery reveals although similiar scanners are already in use.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/..._technology_dc
    Britain makes camera that "sees" under clothesSun Mar 9, 7:21 AM ET[/i] 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)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    I thought this was going to be like the "Get your ass to mars!" x-ray wall in Total Recall, but it's a standalone camera which uses naturally occuring background T-wave radiation to "scan" you. They have a product sheet with an example on their older (?) T4000 (click the bottom link for a pdf sheet):
    http://www.thruvision.com/products/

    http://www.thruvision.com/images/PDF...12.07%20lr.pdf
    -Unrequited

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Looks like this is only in England for now. I'll be so pissed if this ever makes it to the US.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Utter non-science.

    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.
    A tin-foil holster matching tin-foil hat will render this moot.

    The T50000000000 Camera may perform as advertised but not by use of tin-foil hat technology. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Utter non-science.

    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.
    A tin-foil holster matching tin-foil hat will render this moot.

    The T50000000000 Camera may perform as advertised but not by use of tin-foil hat technology. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    I was getting the same feeling... Companies like to market their shiny new (and expensive) "safety" technology and get governments to sign onto it without a proper evaluation of the technology. Take microstamping.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I'm afraid that we have abetted that with our willingness to buy NEW AND IMPROVED in a smaller box for more money.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Utter non-science.

    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.
    A tin-foil holster matching tin-foil hat will render this moot.

    The T50000000000 Camera may perform as advertised but not by use of tin-foil hat technology. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    Explanation as to the science of your argument, please? Not a scientific area in which I have any familiarity so I have no ability to confirm or refute even the possibility of their claims so I am quite interested in other's informed opinions on the science.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    If this comes over here, I'll start marketing a T-shirt with metal words that read "If you can read this go $@#$ off!":P
    They'll probably make it illegal to do that too.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Explanation as to the science of your argument, please? Not a scientific area in which I have any familiarity so I have no ability to confirm or refute even the possibility of their claims so I am quite interested in other's informed opinions on the science.
    Me neither, but the Wikipedia article on Terahertz radiation sure makes it sound like that segment of the EM spectrum has properties ideally suited to imaging concealed weapons. Specifically, that wavelength is non-ionizing and penetrates most non-conductive materials. So, it'll pass right through most clothing, but reflect off of the metal in a gun and the water in your body.

    ThruVision claims they image using the THz radiation emitted by every object (black-body radiation). What's not clear to me is if the radiation really differs enough from object to object to enable imaging, or if it would be like looking at a world where everything is glowing with exactly the same intensity in exactly the same color.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Explanation as to the science of your argument, please? Not a scientific area in which I have any familiarity so I have no ability to confirm or refute even the possibility of their claims so I am quite interested in other's informed opinions on the science.
    Me neither, but the Wikipedia article on Terahertz radiation sure makes it sound like that segment of the EM spectrum has properties ideally suited to imaging concealed weapons. Specifically, that wavelength is non-ionizing and penetrates most non-conductive materials. So, it'll pass right through most clothing, but reflect off of the metal in a gun and the water in your body.

    ThruVision claims they image using the THz radiation emitted by every object (black-body radiation). What's not clear to me is if the radiation really differs enough from object to object to enable imaging, or if it would be like looking at a world where everything is glowing with exactly the same intensity in exactly the same color.
    The answer the demand for the science of my argument is in a proper reading of the Wiki article. A hint is that Planck's Constant h= Energy E divided by frequency f (Halliday, Resnick & Walker p1132).

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Explanation as to the science of your argument, please? Not a scientific area in which I have any familiarity so I have no ability to confirm or refute even the possibility of their claims so I am quite interested in other's informed opinions on the science.
    Me neither, but the Wikipedia article on Terahertz radiation sure makes it sound like that segment of the EM spectrum has properties ideally suited to imaging concealed weapons. Specifically, that wavelength is non-ionizing and penetrates most non-conductive materials. So, it'll pass right through most clothing, but reflect off of the metal in a gun and the water in your body.

    ThruVision claims they image using the THz radiation emitted by every object (black-body radiation). What's not clear to me is if the radiation really differs enough from object to object to enable imaging, or if it would be like looking at a world where everything is glowing with exactly the same intensity in exactly the same color.
    The answer the demand for the science of my argument is in a proper reading of the Wiki article. A hint is that Planck's Constant h= Energy E divided by frequency f (Halliday, Resnick & Walker p1132).
    Firstly, it was a polite request for information and expertise, not a demand.

    Secondly, can you please just tell us what your argument is and refer us to the wiki article to support your argument as most people do rather than refer us to the wiki article and tell us to read it properly? The request was not for hints. If I wanted to research it and figure it out for myself I wouldn't have had to ask. The wiki article you refer us back to says this is science and that the camera you call "utter non science" is a technological use under development which contradicts your assertion. I have not a flippin' clue which of you is right and don't recall ever even hearing of terahertz radation in physics classes.

    Thirdly, I assume "Halliday, Resnick & Walker p1132" is an incomplete cite to one of the 7 editions of either their basic or extended Fundamentals of Physics books published over the last 30+ years, but it is not a cite from the wiki article, nor a tome most people are likely to have on their etagere for easy reference.

    Please just tell us. I asked because I am interested. You made a strong assertion as to "utter non science" so I assume that you have a strong rationale/argument to back up that assertion or you would not have made the comment, especially on this forum where proof is requested for everything (when I state that I don't do drugs I keep waiting for someone to post up an address to a lab somewhere so I can send in urine and hair samples for testing to prove it:P). I am not challenging your conclusion as I don't have enough knowledge of the issue to do so, just requesting information.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    My apopogies. Is it your understanding that all scientific arguments can be made in a few words? I'll try...

    From the Wiki article,
    Sources
    While terahertz radiation is emitted as part of the black body radiation from anything with temperatures greater than about 10 kelvin, this thermal emission is very weak.
    Planck's constant tells us photon energy from frequency, very low for so long a wavelength/low frequency as sub-millimeter/THz photons. Light wavelength is in nanometers, still long relative to ionizing radiation.

    Stefan-Boltzmann's constant tells us the power radiated by a perfect radiator at a particular absolute temperature, in this case call it 310K only 15K warmer than its 295K surroundings.

    The imaging device, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology," so it is not a source. Where is the THz radiation source intense enough to be reflected and detected by an end user product, worse at a distance due to the effect of the inverse square law.

    The device may work but not as advertised. All I had to do was see the word 'ray' and my BS detector tripped. Maybe detection of passively emitted RF is an explanatory analogy.

    Halliday, Resnick and Walker are authors of one of the freshman physics textbooks and the only one that I have room to keep. It is not advanced enough to even put "not even wrong" in context (there is a Wikipedia article on that too).

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    My apopogies. Is it your understanding that all scientific arguments can be made in a few words? I'll try...

    From the Wiki article,
    Sources
    While terahertz radiation is emitted as part of the black body radiation from anything with temperatures greater than about 10 kelvin, this thermal emission is very weak.
    Planck's constant tells us photon energy from frequency, very low for so long a wavelength/low frequency as sub-millimeter/THz photons. Light wavelength is in nanometers, still long relative to ionizing radiation.

    Stefan-Boltzmann's constant tells us the power radiated by a perfect radiator at a particular absolute temperature, in this case call it 310K only 15K warmer than its 295K surroundings.

    The imaging device, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology," so it is not a source. Where is the THz radiation source intense enough to be reflected and detected by an end user product, worse at a distance due to the effect of the inverse square law.

    The device may work but not as advertised. All I had to do was see the word 'ray' and my BS detector tripped. Maybe detection of passively emitted RF is an explanatory analogy.

    Halliday, Resnick and Walker are authors of one of the freshman physics textbooks and the only one that I have room to keep. It is not advanced enough to even put "not even wrong" in context (there is a Wikipedia article on that too).
    Thank you, Doug. I now understand your concern with the science. And I do understand that some things can't be summed up in a few words as some of my longer posts on the forum will indicate. Appreciate it.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Something in the back on my mind says that exposure to x-ray beams cannot be good for you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Something in the back on my mind says that exposure to x-ray beams cannot be good for you.
    True, but not relevant. X-rays are very high frequency, and part of a broader range of EM radiation that is ionizing (meaning it knocks electrons loose from atoms, given them a charge and inducing chemical reactions) which is why they can be dangerous. These "T-rays" are lower in frequency and non-ionizing, so not generally dangerous.

    Beyond that, this device supposedly only detects T-rays that are already present, rather than emitting any.

    The question isn't whether or not it's safe, it's whether or not it works, and if it does work, whether or not it works the way it's claimed to work (or whether it does actively emit T-rays, or actually uses X-rays or something else).

    My suspicion is that it's primary function is to separate gullible investors from their money.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Something in the back on my mind says that exposure to x-ray beams cannot be good for you.
    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Matanowski, Genevieve, et al. Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers. Department of Energy Contract Number DE-Ac02-79Av10095. June 1991.
    Says otherwise. I am a significant datum in this study with exceptional 2.75 REM occupational exposure.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    True, but not relevant.

    My suspicion is that it's primary function is to separate gullible investors from their money.
    The currently imposed federal standard for health effects of ionizing radition is based on the Linear No Threshold hypothesis extrapolated from high dose A-bomb survivors. No purposeful low level study data has been accepted by the standards making groups - like Matanowski's. Its conclusion is in too few words, 'general health benefits from low level ionizing radiation in the studied population.'

    The competing hypothesis to LNT and what I support is 'radiation hormesis.'

    The 'investor' predicate is Gullah-bull - worse and beyond mere gullible - synonymous with invincibly ignorant.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Something in the back on my mind says that exposure to x-ray beams cannot be good for you.
    True, but not relevant. X-rays are very high frequency, and part of a broader range of EM radiation that is ionizing (meaning it knocks electrons loose from atoms, given them a charge and inducing chemical reactions) which is why they can be dangerous. These "T-rays" are lower in frequency and non-ionizing, so not generally dangerous.

    Beyond that, this device supposedly only detects T-rays that are already present, rather than emitting any.

    The question isn't whether or not it's safe, it's whether or not it works, and if it does work, whether or not it works the way it's claimed to work (or whether it does actively emit T-rays, or actually uses X-rays or something else).

    My suspicion is that it's primary function is to separate gullible investors from their money.
    Not having any working knowledge on what radiation I am normally exposed to daily and what this device can do to me if exposed for aduration of time.... it is going to scare me just a little.

    The word "radiation" exposure just seems wrong.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Read the Wikipedia article with the range 3 x 10^11 Hz to 3 x 10^12 Hz in mind, the frequency range of THz stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

    See that the more familiar phenomena in the neighborhood are what we call 'infra-red' and 'micro-wave'. An infra-red source of tens of watts is needed to feel it. Hundreds of watts of microwave energy is needed to even notice it in the short term. "Man aloft" precautions notwithstanding.

    As to 'radiation', you must differentiate between low energy 'radiation' (like heat, light and radiofrequency) and high energy ionizing radiation (radioactivity).

    The world average natural background radiation is 2.5 mSv.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation has a chart that puts the health effects of radiation in context, i.e., very high exposure is needed for health to be affected. The article has lots of 'see also' references.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I know there is a natural amount that you are exposed to daily.....I just wonder about additional exposure that would be outside that "normal" and dare I say "healthy" exposure.

    You know what they said about radar units and the location cops placed them when not in use. Still in operation and exposing the "body" to transmissions.

    But I am thinking this device would not make it here for use on the public. That is still a search even if you are not touching someone. Same already goes for using infrared on a house to see how many people are inside. You still need a warrant.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I know there is a natural amount that you are exposed to daily.....I just wonder about additional exposure that would be outside that "normal" and dare I say "healthy" exposure.

    You know what they said about radar units and the location cops placed them when not in use. Still in operation and exposing the "body" to transmissions.

    But I am thinking this device would not make it here for use on the public. That is still a search even if you are not touching someone. Same already goes for using infrared on a house to see how many people are inside. You still need a warrant.
    The anecdotal stories of 'radar-guns' in the crotch were of units ON and at very close range and long term chronic abuse. All radiation, hi and low energy, obeys the 'inverse square' law, changing the distance by a factor of 2 changes the intensity by a factor of 2^2 = 4. Kind'a like keeping a lit lighter in your pocket.

    The referenced chart has seven ordered entries before the US cosmic-ray radiation is noted. Then there are 27 entries to 500 - 1000 mSv for radiation sickness due to acute exposure for a range of 5 powers of ten.

    Radiation should be your last worry. Just like a dirty-bomb, if it was easy then everybody would do it. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Noted..... You know your radiation that is for sure.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    The ability to see what is in my pockets crosses into my expectation of privacy. I would see little difference between the use of such a device and an illegal search of my person.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    The ability to see what is in my pockets crosses into my expectation of privacy. I would see little difference between the use of such a device and an illegal search of my person.
    Exactly!!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    But I am thinking this device would not make it here for use on the public. That is still a search even if you are not touching someone. Same already goes for using infrared on a house to see how many people are inside. You still need a warrant.
    I agree with you in principle, but demanding a warrant is impossible if you're not aware that you're being scanned. Walking down the street, or through a shopping mall, or on the sidewalk past a federal building of some sort, you'd never know.

    And although I thnk they need a warrant in principle for this, I also am of the opinion they should get a warrant before searching and sniffing my private belongings in airports or train stations, and my opinion means squat there, so I am a bit pessemistic when I think about how these things would wind up in public places under the guise of "public safety".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •