How To detection of explosives materials ....?

Other Hardware 3rd Party Boards
21

falahgs:
........
Currently studying search for how to detect explosives and explosive belts , especially by suicide bombers in Iraq .. I hope to help by experts sensors of chemical or physical
There Is electromagnetic field sensors benefit in this case ...?
....[/size]

OK.
You want to perform standoff detection of explosives.
It is the Holy Grail of explosives detection (and a lot of other "detection" subjects). The big problem is, that explosives do not emit easily detectable signals on their own and in open air, you have to get very close to "smell" them chemically.

To be of any use, your system should detect the bomb before you and your detector are within range of it.

Try to google for "standoff detection", and you'll see that millions are poured into this field of research (with relatively limited results).
As long as you do not have a sensor that can return any useful signals to you, the arduino is no help.

22

There's also a line of research using rats, but I think that is specifically for mine clearance

23

You should broaden your research scope to make it easier. A rephrase of your goal opens new ways of approaching the problem. Defining a problem too specific cut off many possible solutions.

Rephrase 1: finding people with explosive belts => finding people wearing something under their clothes.

Check the persons BMI:
Measure the length and weight of a person. // ping sensor on head, weight scale under their feet.
if they would wear a belt their weight would probably lie above some average.

automated body contour check

  • rontgen scanner?
  • a robot that follows the contours?
    might not be as intrusive for many people as when a person does the "body check"
    These contours should match some expectations. Belts typically result in sudden blobs.

These ideas are definitely not fool proof but could be a first selection; would also detect other hidden things

Rephrase 2: finding people with explosive belts => Prevent people wearing anything:

=> the naked tunnel
People have to walk naked through a tunnel ( man/women separated) clothes can be inspected separately
Such "tunnels" are used in diamond mines to prevent smuggling/stealing diamonds.

There are many other ways to rephrase your problem, give it a try.

24

robtillaart:
You should broaden your research scope to make it easier. A rephrase of your goal opens new ways of approaching the problem.
......
automated body contour check
.....
There are many other ways to rephrase your problem, give it a try.

I agree that rephrasing the question is probably a much more sound approach.

My best guess would also be to analyze body shape, body language or movements, to see if someone is stressed or carries something heavy/bulky under the clothes.
But on the other hand..... We are talking about a part of the world, where wearing a full body tent is considered "well dressed".
It will efficiently shield (or is modifiable to shield) against most methods of observation.
But people will rather be blown up than change that.

There is big money in security, and lots of science going on.
As a chemist I would put my money on spectroscopic methods, but I am still doubtful whether it can be made to work in the real world outside the labs.

25

The solution to detecting explosives...

At this point in time, developing dog training technology (more efficiently fielding well trained dogs and handlers) is a far better use of resources than trying to develop explosives detection technology.

26

What about a Beagle Bone Black ?

...R

27

So you see everyone is having fun with this discussion if only because it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with Arduinox.

While we have no doubt of your serious intent, and note you indeed have some experience with the Arduino platform, you are nevertheless in the same category as the "newbies" or rank beginners who come here and ask for advice in using an Arduino for something that fundamentally has nothing to do with microcontrollers of any sort.

Detecting explosives is a matter of chemistry. The instruments used for this are in general, variants of mass spectrometers or possibly nanotechnology sensors which react to specific molecules, possibly using biotechnology. Building a mass spectrometer is a substantial engineering task which just might - somewhere along the way - involve a microcontroller or two, but these would be very much peripheral aspects of the project as they would be for nanosensors.

It most certainly has nothing to do with electromagnetic field sensors because explosives per se are neither sensitive to, nor emit any form of electromagnetic field.

And the current situation is that despite considerable research, there is at least at present, little that is more practical in use than a suitably trained dog, or less expensive to maintain.

28

robtillaart:
You should broaden your research scope to make it easier. A rephrase of your goal opens new ways of approaching the problem. Defining a problem too specific cut off many possible solutions.
There are many other ways to rephrase your problem, give it a try.

Thank you for your comments and assistance and ideas
1- Can we use the sensor detector changes in the electromagnetic field of a person dressed explosive belt ... ?
2-Can we account for changes in capacitance sensor by contact between a body and EMF Sensor board ?
3- Are we could use ultrasound sensors to detect changes in the amplitude of the reflected wave echo after tigger at body wearing an explosives belt ?
4- Can we use the waves infrared sensor detector infrared waves to see changes in the body emitting waves of heat before dressing and after dressing as a measure of changes between two values and knowledge of the body that holds the belt of explosives ?
With many thanks and appreciation

29

falahgs:
Thank you for your comments and assistance and ideas
"the same questions again"
[/quote]
Did you read the answers to your first questions?

30

Peter_I:
Did you read the answers to your first questions?

And here am I thinking I had summarised the situation most succinctly!

Particularly with respect to "electromagnetic field sensors" which of course, necessarily includes magnetic, capacitive, radio waves, infra-red, light, ultraviolet. And ultrasound. May not quite include X-rays and gamma spectroscopy or "dowsing". :wink:

31

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

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

32

fungus:

Robin2:
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.

33

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

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 ?

34

dave-in-nj:
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" :slight_smile:

...R

35

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?

36

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 ?

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.....)

37

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.

38

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

39

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.

40

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

...R