h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Airports commonly use x-ray machines to scan luggage for security risks. These things are usually metal such as knves or guns; large soild objects such as drugs; or othrewise easily identifiable such as bombs.
An alternative scanning technology can be utilized for much cheaper. This is to use a oven
like heater and an infared scanner. Luggage put on the conveyor belt would be put into the oven, which is blast protected by steel and concrete and then put through the infared scanner.
Objects that conduct very little heat will appear dull on terminal and metallic objects such as those that are deadly or destructive will be brighter. Similarly large nonconductive objects would be also obvious. Living contraband would be killed by the heat and explosives would potentially be detonated in place - opposed to a place where they are unexpected.
As the temperature of objects only has to increase slightly for them to be distinguished, this system should work quite well. And inexpenisvely at that. As for damage to belongings that may occur, since when have airports, in particular, cared about that?
Wikipedia: Differential thermal analysis
https://en.wikipedi...al_thermal_analysis
doesn't seem to have been used for luggage scanning yet [notexactly, Mar 02 2015]
[link]
|
| |
actually I'm pretty pissed already and bored with this... |
|
| |
If an image was produced which showed not the relative heat of different stationary objects, but the rate of change of heat of different objects, this would work exactly as you propose. I like it! |
|
| |
yes, there are spelling mistakes. that happens when something is typed frantically when at work. welcome to the world wide web. |
|
| |
So, what, now you're at home where the shift key is busted? :) |
|
| |
To defeat this system, I would cover the inside of the luggage with insulation. Then anything else, which is inside, will be not heated in the first place, and not detected in the second place.
Next. |
|
| |
[half], no just lazy.
[Ling], hopefully the outside of your luggage conducts less heat than the insulation, or you will have one glowing suitcase and a whole lot of airport security ontop of you. |
|
| |
Yes, glowing plastic suitcases would certainly attract unwanted attention. |
|
| |
Infra-red = long wavelength = poor resolution = fishbone. |
|
| |
I think you might be getting confused with radio waves, as 'long wave' is measured in metres.
Whereas infrared is measured in micro metres. |
|
| |
..no I'm not confused - infra-red wavelengths are measured in hundreds (if not thousands) of micrometres (yup, whole millimetres), x-rays have wavelengths in the tens on nanometres. IR photons are typically one hundred to one hundred million times less energetic than x-ray photons. Longer wavelength, lower energy; IR scanners would be s-l-o-w.
Next. |
|
| |
Now I'm confused. I thought you was talking about resolution, which relies on the wavelength. But now you are talking about energy, which also relies on the wavelength.
Since IR would not penetrate a suitcase wall, I hope you agree that it's irrelevant anyway. |
|
| |
Oh no, I've seen IR detectors see human body heat through an office partition wall. Took a long time though, and very indistinct. I could tell you the detector manufacturer, but then I'd have to be jolly beastly to you. But irrrelevant, yes. |
|
| |