• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The T5000 camera making weapon concealment obselete.

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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/tc_nm/security_britain_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)
 

unrequited

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
1,407
Location
Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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 KMA$$
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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 KMA$$
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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 KMA$$
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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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).
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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).
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

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

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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 KMA$$
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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. :D
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 
Top