Go Down

Topic: How To detection of explosives materials ....? (Read 15173 times) previous topic - next topic

AWOL

Quote
necessarily includes magnetic, capacitive, radio waves, infra-red, light, ultraviolet.  And ultrasound..

No, that would be "acoustic", not "electromagnetic"

dave-in-nj



I wonder how many different Government agencies are already monitoring this Thread to see if they need to arrest someone?


None. Take off your tinfoil.



you opened the door...
from what we know about the 'evesdropping'   
every phone call
every fax
every e-mail
every IM
every keystroke
every IP visited  (read the google warning with a incognito window)

remember the guys in boston ?  within days they 'found' all their phone calls and interviewed those people they spoke to.  not just the person who owned the phones.  they have the calls recorded in their data base.

it is not tin foil, it ha been in place for decades.   and now it is much easier because we do everything with digital.

the problem is that there is sooooo much, there is no way to review it all.
but after something happens, they can go back and dig it out like they did in boston.

Popular Mechanics did an article on Echelon.  a writer in NY and a writer in LA had phone calls back and forth using scriped conversations.  they used the special words.  both were visited by men in black suits.
and that was when the internet was less than 10 years old.

snowden and other whistle blowers have confirmed that the extent is far-far more than anyone can envision.  snowden only released part of the extent of the surveillance.   and all of this is available if you bother to look on the internet.

as for laws, well the USA has been under Marshall law for over a decade.  the latest declaration of  a National State of Emergency was March 9

sorry, getting too far off topic.

end of way off topic post. my apologizes, but truth supersedes all.

dave-in-nj

anyone notice that this thread is 3 pages long and no one is discussing any actual devcies ?

http://www.figarosensor.com

figarosensor makes multiple gas sensors.     not sure if there is one as sensitive as a dog.

metal detectors can find metals.

the question of a belt with the wrong stuff,   is there a sensor that could tell if a human was wearing a coat (or clothes) or carrying a book ?

Robin2


the problem is that there is sooooo much, there is no way to review it all.


Not so hard when alarming words (like "explosives") appear in the text.

And by the way it is "martial" not "Marshall"    :)

...R

Two or three hours spent thinking and reading documentation solves most programming problems.

AWOL

Quote
a writer in NY and a writer in LA had phone calls back and forth using scriped conversations.  they used the special words.  both were visited by men in black suits.
and that was when the internet was less than 10 years old.
That would be, what, the late 1970s?

Peter_I

#35
May 13, 2014, 10:14 am Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 10:57 am by Peter_I Reason: 1

anyone notice that this thread is 3 pages long and no one is discussing any actual devcies ?

http://www.figarosensor.com

figarosensor makes multiple gas sensors.     not sure if there is one as sensitive as a dog.

metal detectors can find metals.

the question of a belt with the wrong stuff,   is there a sensor that could tell if a human was wearing a coat (or clothes) or carrying a book ?


The simplest, cheapest and most abundant. detector is "Eyeball MK I" combined with "probing fingers". It just requires people to take off most of their clothes and being fondled.

But it is slow, labor intensive and intrusive.
And worst of all, it gives no stand off for the operators.
The bomber may not reach his primary target, but at least he can scream "All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Praised be His juicy meatballs)" and blow up the checkpoint, the security operators and the other people waiting in line. It has a perfectly good effect from a terroristic point of view.

You need the stand off, and that is where the problem is. It all comes down to signal/noise ratio.
There is a lot of noise, and in practical applications (with wind, dirt, sunlight lots of people in lots of different clothing and doused with perfume, sweat  and 50 shades of grime)  it is very hard to get a decent signal*, especially from something that is not particularly volatile (like most explosives).

Dogs are efficient, but they still need to get reasonably close, to pin point the source. The gas sensor has the same problem.
(And we are back to the stand off problem).



*Measuring is always about that. Produce a signal that tells you something about what you want to know, and get decent signal to noise ratio.
Blasting the general population with ionizing radiation, huge magnetic field or eyeball sizzling lasers (to excite any interesting compound enough to make it send out a characteristic signal) will normally be frowned upon.

(They do not let children go through the "perfectly harmless full body scanner" at the airport.....)
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool"

wwbrown

Governments would monitor this discussion only if they thought they might gain information about explosive detection, they would really like to have better ways of doing explosive detection and would take it from any source and validate on their own.  There is nothing wrong with people researching, building, talking about, ... explosive detection, now if we started to explore defeating the existing technologies they might get concerned. 

Someone who is stupid enough to be discussing nefarious affairs with explosives on an open forum with the readership like this one is very probably too stupid to build a device that would work. 

Paul__B

That is of course, the classic "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument.

AWOL

I don't think that's strictly true - if you were trying to circumvent detection equipment, you'd want to know what the state of the art was.

Robin2

I reckon the OP works for MI5 or the FBI or equivalent and is spying on us.

...R
Two or three hours spent thinking and reading documentation solves most programming problems.

dannable

I want to see the OP's test plan.

1) Obtain explosive...
Beginners guide to using the Seeedstudio SIM900 GPRS/GSM Shield

AWOL


Robin2

I have about 20kg of a very dangerous material - LPG (propane?). Easily obtained. Easily detected by the nostrils. Not so easy to hide under clothes.

...R
Two or three hours spent thinking and reading documentation solves most programming problems.

fungus


I have about 20kg of a very dangerous material - LPG (propane?). Easily obtained. Easily detected by the nostrils. Not so easy to hide under clothes.


Some people are able to produce a potentially explosive mix of hydrogen/methane on demand.

Advanced Arduino

Robin2


Some people are able to produce a potentially explosive mix of hydrogen/methane on demand.


And you just need electricty and water to prepare a perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Our old science teacher demonstrated it in the lab (on purpose, and with reasonable precautions).

...R
Two or three hours spent thinking and reading documentation solves most programming problems.

Go Up