Coveredinbeeees
Scholar
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 108
Have you considered forwarding this e-mail to Randi? I'd love to see the JREF get involved with a test.
Merged [Ed] Get involved detecting the ade 651 detector / Jim McCormick arrested
- Thread starter Dubious Dick
- Start date
Have you considered forwarding this e-mail to Randi? I'd love to see the JREF get involved with a test.
Dubious Dick
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 515
MDC
Hi Guys,
Knowing that Randi and his team are hyper busy, I have suggested to Mr. Vollmar of the wunderbar Sniffex Plus (which has apperntly been much improved
)that he applies for the MDC directly. We shall await the progress of his application with interest!!
Hi Guys,
Knowing that Randi and his team are hyper busy, I have suggested to Mr. Vollmar of the wunderbar Sniffex Plus (which has apperntly been much improved
)that he applies for the MDC directly. We shall await the progress of his application with interest!!LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
Thanks for the additional information. I have a much clearer picture now.
Granted, this is a paperwork review as the actual device and/or schematic is currently unavailable for inspection so it is subject to infinite change/update as additional information is appropriated and as of this post should only be regarded as a technical opinion. ( today LOL) The information comes from links sent to me and in this thread.
1) The thermal redux technology in a nutshell- based on the principle of the thermal decomposition of the molecules of an explosive compound and the subsequent reduction of the nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) groups formed. This technology is legitimate, recognized and currently in use. ( talked to a buddy in the NIJ who is an SME in detection systems)
How the process works is similar to other particulate detectors in use in various chemical industries and a few others.Air containing the explosive sample is drawn into the system through an inlet and is passed through a sample concentrator tube, which selectively adsorbs explosive vapor molecules. The concentrated sample is then pyrolyzed (heated) to release the NO 2 groups, which are then transferred to a membrane separator/sensor assembly. Finally, the gases are passed across the sensing surface of the detector and a signal is generated. Verification of the presence of explosive vapors is accomplished by comparing the strength of the signal with the time elapsed from the start of the analysis cycle.
2) Other legitimate detection technologies are-Ion Mobility Spectrometry , Gas Chromatography/Surface Acoustic Wave and Electron-Capture Detectors.
All of these devices require a sample to move thru various components and compared to known test standards.
The claims for the devices in question:
1)detection of pre-initialized magnetic interference.
First, I cant even turn that into any meaningful statement. ( but I'm going to try anyway)
If this were true, it would mean that the device somehow detects a composition from its magnetic signature. ( presuming that "pre-initialized" means something along the lines of excited in reference to either chemical desorption, reaction, breakdown or maybe reacting with gasses in the air- all those are guesses because I cant pin that statement of theirs down) IN THEORY- it would be theoretically possible to detect such a field but identifying it and then eliminating all other similar fields ( which a detctor would have to do- at least to a degree) is beyond current technology.
2) power source which “modulates” the applied DC magnetic field. According to a report I read- this unit has magnets in it so in the most literal sense this is true as the magnets would create a DC field and since the field is moving, it is "modulating" ( creating a load in the electrical sense) and depending on the gauss of the magnets V the gause of any other field- one is going to out push the other.
So, "true" but absolutely meaningless. Every device on earth with magnets in it can make the same claim.
3) antenna works as an integration device pointing the direction towards the object through detection of the line of interference.
Another "how long is long" statement LOL. This tells me the antenna is connected to the magnets. ( I wonder if it is an emitter or collector because an emitter can set off a magnetic fuze) The only thing I can believe is that "line of interference" would be a typo and they mean lines of force since they are talking about magnetic fields. I and my 2 associate EE's ( had to get a second and third opinion just to make sure I was reading this stuff correctly) cant fathom what they are saying much less a operational theory that actually does anything.
4) creates in the surrounding one magnetic field with specific form. The device requires a relative movement in relation to the earth magnetic vector and more specifically to its vertical component.
Our universal translator is out for calibration so we were guessing at this one. The part about it creating "one magnetic field with a specific form" is true in the literal sense as the article i read says it has magnets in it and since magnets are "specific" I guess it does.
What is the "vertical component"? What is an "earth magnetic vector"? ( granted the Earth has a magnetic field generated by a self exciting dynamo effect of the core and its measures in vectors but its "dynamic" and always fluctuating as well is "everywhere" so how it it using this?)
5) The interaction between the dynamic magnetic structure created by SNIFFEX®PLUS and the vertical component of the earth magnetic vector establishes the necessary and sufficient conditions for the activity of the magnetic interference.
OK, they apparently either invented a crude compass or induced current. ( like rubbing a magnet on a wire will move electrons that a VOM will detect) "Technically" true since at some level both fields would create some miniscule reaction but so would moving almost any other object.
6) If in the surrounding there is a presence of an object containing in its chemical structure -NO2 or -NO3 compounds the interference can be measured with the turning of the antenna which reacts as a “pointer” to the object.
OK 2 stimulated magnetic fields that are not controlled ( and 1 random) is going to detect a chemical compound by "interference"? And this gain is measured by an antenna?
What they are describing is somewhere between IMS and ECD listed above. ( kinda a hybrid)
Still reading up on these and any info would be appreciated but what I'm seeing so far is meaningless gibberish that uses some "literal" truths in an attempt to shore up "nothing"
Granted, this is a paperwork review as the actual device and/or schematic is currently unavailable for inspection so it is subject to infinite change/update as additional information is appropriated and as of this post should only be regarded as a technical opinion. ( today LOL) The information comes from links sent to me and in this thread.
1) The thermal redux technology in a nutshell- based on the principle of the thermal decomposition of the molecules of an explosive compound and the subsequent reduction of the nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) groups formed. This technology is legitimate, recognized and currently in use. ( talked to a buddy in the NIJ who is an SME in detection systems)
How the process works is similar to other particulate detectors in use in various chemical industries and a few others.Air containing the explosive sample is drawn into the system through an inlet and is passed through a sample concentrator tube, which selectively adsorbs explosive vapor molecules. The concentrated sample is then pyrolyzed (heated) to release the NO 2 groups, which are then transferred to a membrane separator/sensor assembly. Finally, the gases are passed across the sensing surface of the detector and a signal is generated. Verification of the presence of explosive vapors is accomplished by comparing the strength of the signal with the time elapsed from the start of the analysis cycle.
2) Other legitimate detection technologies are-Ion Mobility Spectrometry , Gas Chromatography/Surface Acoustic Wave and Electron-Capture Detectors.
All of these devices require a sample to move thru various components and compared to known test standards.
The claims for the devices in question:
1)detection of pre-initialized magnetic interference.
First, I cant even turn that into any meaningful statement. ( but I'm going to try anyway)
If this were true, it would mean that the device somehow detects a composition from its magnetic signature. ( presuming that "pre-initialized" means something along the lines of excited in reference to either chemical desorption, reaction, breakdown or maybe reacting with gasses in the air- all those are guesses because I cant pin that statement of theirs down) IN THEORY- it would be theoretically possible to detect such a field but identifying it and then eliminating all other similar fields ( which a detctor would have to do- at least to a degree) is beyond current technology.
2) power source which “modulates” the applied DC magnetic field. According to a report I read- this unit has magnets in it so in the most literal sense this is true as the magnets would create a DC field and since the field is moving, it is "modulating" ( creating a load in the electrical sense) and depending on the gauss of the magnets V the gause of any other field- one is going to out push the other.
So, "true" but absolutely meaningless. Every device on earth with magnets in it can make the same claim.
3) antenna works as an integration device pointing the direction towards the object through detection of the line of interference.
Another "how long is long" statement LOL. This tells me the antenna is connected to the magnets. ( I wonder if it is an emitter or collector because an emitter can set off a magnetic fuze) The only thing I can believe is that "line of interference" would be a typo and they mean lines of force since they are talking about magnetic fields. I and my 2 associate EE's ( had to get a second and third opinion just to make sure I was reading this stuff correctly) cant fathom what they are saying much less a operational theory that actually does anything.
4) creates in the surrounding one magnetic field with specific form. The device requires a relative movement in relation to the earth magnetic vector and more specifically to its vertical component.
Our universal translator is out for calibration so we were guessing at this one. The part about it creating "one magnetic field with a specific form" is true in the literal sense as the article i read says it has magnets in it and since magnets are "specific" I guess it does.
What is the "vertical component"? What is an "earth magnetic vector"? ( granted the Earth has a magnetic field generated by a self exciting dynamo effect of the core and its measures in vectors but its "dynamic" and always fluctuating as well is "everywhere" so how it it using this?)
5) The interaction between the dynamic magnetic structure created by SNIFFEX®PLUS and the vertical component of the earth magnetic vector establishes the necessary and sufficient conditions for the activity of the magnetic interference.
OK, they apparently either invented a crude compass or induced current. ( like rubbing a magnet on a wire will move electrons that a VOM will detect) "Technically" true since at some level both fields would create some miniscule reaction but so would moving almost any other object.
6) If in the surrounding there is a presence of an object containing in its chemical structure -NO2 or -NO3 compounds the interference can be measured with the turning of the antenna which reacts as a “pointer” to the object.
OK 2 stimulated magnetic fields that are not controlled ( and 1 random) is going to detect a chemical compound by "interference"? And this gain is measured by an antenna?
What they are describing is somewhere between IMS and ECD listed above. ( kinda a hybrid)
Still reading up on these and any info would be appreciated but what I'm seeing so far is meaningless gibberish that uses some "literal" truths in an attempt to shore up "nothing"
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
Yes I am ( situated in CONUS) but work OCONUS as well
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 276
Longtabber,
From the Sniffex Questions blog, here are some reference materials:
The full US Navy report on Sniffex, which Randi broke the story on a couple of years ago:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/NavyReport.pdf
The user manual for Sniffex. I don't see one yet for Sniffex Plus, but I can hope. I think this one will have you laughing. If I recall correctly, Randi even challenged Sniffex to be able to complete the tests they describe in their own manual. As long as the person who hid the sample leaves the room, they do a pretty good job of describing a double-blind test of Sniffex.
http://tasc.bg/images/Manual.doc
If I ever start a band, I am going to call it "Container 19"
From the Sniffex Questions blog, here are some reference materials:
The full US Navy report on Sniffex, which Randi broke the story on a couple of years ago:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/NavyReport.pdf
The user manual for Sniffex. I don't see one yet for Sniffex Plus, but I can hope. I think this one will have you laughing. If I recall correctly, Randi even challenged Sniffex to be able to complete the tests they describe in their own manual. As long as the person who hid the sample leaves the room, they do a pretty good job of describing a double-blind test of Sniffex.
http://tasc.bg/images/Manual.doc
If I ever start a band, I am going to call it "Container 19"
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
I started reading that manual and my mind threw up. I have a Vulcan friend coming over and after my ability to think is restored I'll get back with a more detailed discussion.
I dont know whats worse. Their plan to market this rube golberg machine or the gullibility of someone who buys it.
I dont know whats worse. Their plan to market this rube golberg machine or the gullibility of someone who buys it.
Techowiz
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 73
Sniffex patent
Hi Longtabber,
The reason I asked if you were based in the US is you can look at the patent filed by Sniffex, I have it in pdf format if anyone wants to see it, but it can be downloaded free.
The patent Number is US 6,344,818
Date of patent is Feb 5 2002
The 'Inventor' is listed as a, Yuri MARKOV from Sofia in Bulgaria.
regards
Hi Longtabber,
The reason I asked if you were based in the US is you can look at the patent filed by Sniffex, I have it in pdf format if anyone wants to see it, but it can be downloaded free.
The patent Number is US 6,344,818
Date of patent is Feb 5 2002
The 'Inventor' is listed as a, Yuri MARKOV from Sofia in Bulgaria.
regards
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
I read it- does your PDF have the reference drawing?
Reason I say that is what is described in the text and what is described in the brochure cant be the same exact machine. The device described in the patent has a signal emitter, coils and stuff that require POWER.
Please fire that to me so I can print it and mark it up.
Techowiz
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 73
Hi Longtabber,
The patent I have has several reference drawings. The pdf format I have will not let me cut and paste it into this forum, if you have a spare email I can send it to you. Send me email via pm if you can't download the full patent yourself.
regards
The patent I have has several reference drawings. The pdf format I have will not let me cut and paste it into this forum, if you have a spare email I can send it to you. Send me email via pm if you can't download the full patent yourself.
regards
Dubious Dick
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 515
Correspondence with Vollmar at Sniffex Europe
Hi guys,
Here is the latest exchange of emails between me and Vollmar:
ME TO VOLLMAR
You said you would take any test. As usual the excuses start right away. The JREF testing would simply be double blind and agreed in advance as to the protocol. It is totally an objective approach. Just no cheating allowed. Of course you would avoid it because you know you are a fraud! If not take the challenge!!
And of course, Governments are often fooled into buying rubbish.
Where are the protocols and test results for your so called double blind testing?
VOLLMAR TO ME
No excuses necessary..
Let’s set it up in Germany, your choice of location, we are ready! We define the layout for testing because we will do strict far-field detection between 2-50 meters, as per our technical description. Will make sure that professional personnel is available and K9 as well. Our partner in Germany is WISAG (see attached reference letter).They are a using the device since 2005!
Mr. Randi is cordially invited!
BR
ME TO VOLLMAR
Mr. Vollmar,
I think you have misunderstood. You do not define the layout for testing. The protocol would need to be agreed by both JREF and yourselves. The protocol would be double blind.
I will make contact with the JREF to indicate that you are willing to submit the SNIFFEX Plus for testing, and then you will be able to enter into direct negotiations with them over the protocol, location etc.
Thank you
VOLLMAR TO ME
We are definitely willing to discuss with JREF and create a proper form of communication unlike the communication between JR and SNIFFEX Inc. previously.
Will take things from there and if we can find a “fair” basis to conduct tests, we are open! But it must be very clear that SNIFFEX®Plus is not a paranormal device but is based on a scientific assumption of measurement of magnetic interferences.
So let’s work something out.
ME TO VOLLMAR
Dear Mr. Vollmar,
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the communication between SNIFFEX Inc and JREF was not "proper".
Previously you said you did not know about the JREF. Where did you see that communication? Usually claimants get very upset when they cannot control the testing because of course it means that the testing cannot be cheated. I will be interested to take a look at the communication you mention.
In the meantime I am forwarding your details to JREF and look forward to testing of Sniffex Plus. I do not think the issue of paranormal is a problem. The challenge has been made to ADE 651, Quadro Tracker and Sniffex Inc in the past on the basis that the science is simply not credible.
VOLLMAR TO ME
I learned from the communication on Mr. Randi’s webpage when I was reading about the Million Dollar contest.
Will wait for next steps fro, JREF or yourself.
BR
DV
ME TO VOLLMAR
Dear Mr. Vollmar,
The best way to progress with the JREF Challenge is to formally register your willingness to participate via this email address:
[email protected]
Please be patient. The staff at JREF are very busy.
I look forward to watching your progress with interest.
ME TO VOLLMAR
Mr. Vollmar,
I cannot find the SNIFFEX U.S. communications on the JREF website. Please can you provide me a page link to what you saw there?
Thank you.
Hi guys,
Here is the latest exchange of emails between me and Vollmar:
ME TO VOLLMAR
You said you would take any test. As usual the excuses start right away. The JREF testing would simply be double blind and agreed in advance as to the protocol. It is totally an objective approach. Just no cheating allowed. Of course you would avoid it because you know you are a fraud! If not take the challenge!!
And of course, Governments are often fooled into buying rubbish.
Where are the protocols and test results for your so called double blind testing?
VOLLMAR TO ME
No excuses necessary..
Let’s set it up in Germany, your choice of location, we are ready! We define the layout for testing because we will do strict far-field detection between 2-50 meters, as per our technical description. Will make sure that professional personnel is available and K9 as well. Our partner in Germany is WISAG (see attached reference letter).They are a using the device since 2005!
Mr. Randi is cordially invited!
BR
ME TO VOLLMAR
Mr. Vollmar,
I think you have misunderstood. You do not define the layout for testing. The protocol would need to be agreed by both JREF and yourselves. The protocol would be double blind.
I will make contact with the JREF to indicate that you are willing to submit the SNIFFEX Plus for testing, and then you will be able to enter into direct negotiations with them over the protocol, location etc.
Thank you
VOLLMAR TO ME
We are definitely willing to discuss with JREF and create a proper form of communication unlike the communication between JR and SNIFFEX Inc. previously.
Will take things from there and if we can find a “fair” basis to conduct tests, we are open! But it must be very clear that SNIFFEX®Plus is not a paranormal device but is based on a scientific assumption of measurement of magnetic interferences.
So let’s work something out.
ME TO VOLLMAR
Dear Mr. Vollmar,
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the communication between SNIFFEX Inc and JREF was not "proper".
Previously you said you did not know about the JREF. Where did you see that communication? Usually claimants get very upset when they cannot control the testing because of course it means that the testing cannot be cheated. I will be interested to take a look at the communication you mention.
In the meantime I am forwarding your details to JREF and look forward to testing of Sniffex Plus. I do not think the issue of paranormal is a problem. The challenge has been made to ADE 651, Quadro Tracker and Sniffex Inc in the past on the basis that the science is simply not credible.
VOLLMAR TO ME
I learned from the communication on Mr. Randi’s webpage when I was reading about the Million Dollar contest.
Will wait for next steps fro, JREF or yourself.
BR
DV
ME TO VOLLMAR
Dear Mr. Vollmar,
The best way to progress with the JREF Challenge is to formally register your willingness to participate via this email address:
[email protected]
Please be patient. The staff at JREF are very busy.
I look forward to watching your progress with interest.
ME TO VOLLMAR
Mr. Vollmar,
I cannot find the SNIFFEX U.S. communications on the JREF website. Please can you provide me a page link to what you saw there?
Thank you.
Dubious Dick
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 515
Sniffex Plus brochure
Vollmar has sent me the brochure for Sniffex Plus as a pdf. I can email it as a pdf if anyone interested. Not sure it is much help, but
And to Longtabber - Great analysis. Many thanks!!
Vollmar has sent me the brochure for Sniffex Plus as a pdf. I can email it as a pdf if anyone interested. Not sure it is much help, but
And to Longtabber - Great analysis. Many thanks!!
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
While I'm waiting on the dwg's from tech, I have fired some emails off to people I know who are still active SF and with the ACE to see if any of them have and knowledge of where the Army tested any of them. ( the USN report is fine but I dont have many contacts in the USN and I would like to locate and speak to someone who actually had hands on with these if possible)
I would also like to point out ( as the CEO of a firm that has 2 US Patents) that in order to get a patent, you dont have to prove a device works. You just need basically to have the operational theory and a basic description/example of the machine just as ISO certification certifies the production process has quality control and tracability built in- it does NOT mean the physical product works or is of high quality.
The funny thing after reading the patent again ( while waiting for those reference dwg's to highlight) and printing an online brochure- they are talking about 2 different devices.
Also, if you go reference the associated patents the claimed patent references- it appears they "borrowed' narratives from legitimate devices and compiled them in theirs.
I would also like to point out ( as the CEO of a firm that has 2 US Patents) that in order to get a patent, you dont have to prove a device works. You just need basically to have the operational theory and a basic description/example of the machine just as ISO certification certifies the production process has quality control and tracability built in- it does NOT mean the physical product works or is of high quality.
The funny thing after reading the patent again ( while waiting for those reference dwg's to highlight) and printing an online brochure- they are talking about 2 different devices.
Also, if you go reference the associated patents the claimed patent references- it appears they "borrowed' narratives from legitimate devices and compiled them in theirs.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
I had coffee now and read the online stuff and the sniffex website again and I "think" I see whats happening. ( but can probably confirm it when I get those PDF's from you) Something didnt sit right with me reading all that yesterday but it could have been the beer.
From the sniffex site EU
>>>The method of measurement is described in The United States Patent 6,344,818 and can be defined as detection of pre-initialized magnetic interference.
From patentstorm
>>>presence of a target material comprising a source module and detector module. The source module includes a generator to producing a source signal corresponding to a characteristic frequency of the target material. The detection nodule detects a location of the target material wherein the detection module detects an interference signal generated between the source signal and a signal generated by target material caused by exposure to the source signal. The device uses frequencies between 10 MHz and 1.3 GHz
>>>a source module, the source module including a source signal generator to generate a source signal corresponding to a characteristic frequency of the target material, the source signal adapted to strike the target material and cause the target material to emit an emitted signal
>>>31. The method of claim 28 wherein the detection step further comprises the step of moving the antenna to detect the interference generated between the source signal and target material.
32. The method of claim 28 wherein the detection step further comprises the first step of scanning around the source signal to detect the interference signal.
What I think ( as yet unconfirmed) I'm seeing is 2 radically different devices.
The sniffex clearly and carefully "wordsmiths' its comments to say the "method of measurement is DESCRIBED...". Nowhere i have seen yet says this actually IS the device named in the patent. ( that would get you around a charge of patent infringement and not paying royalties)
The device in the listed patent APPEARS to be 2 separate devices. A static signal generator ( which must be electrically powered) bombarding an area and a MOBILE detector ( as implied in vague language in 31&32 above) which having coils would have to have a power source as well.
In theory ( this is without close study of the drawings) such a device ( at least in lab conditions as described in the patent) could possibly work to some degree IF you could match all the freqs. Such technology similar is in use today. ( ionizing smoke detectors and some ionizing filters use similar theories as well as some others)
I notice some stark differences between what the patent claims and what the device claims.
I have a few questions
1) Does anyone know IF this machine is the actual machine designed from this patent. ( with royalties paid) I'm beginning to think this is clever wordsmithing and trying to insinuate legitimacy by REFERENCING a patent that theoretically "might" work yet not directly claiming it is a device thats 1 off from the patent. ( wont be the first time thats happened)
2) Is the inventor involved or directly associated with the creation of these claimed devices? ( I'm beginning to believe he probably isnt)
I think I see what they are up to now but need to really look at the detailed drawings.
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 276
The device and inventor are what is described by the patent. You point out what the Navy and Randi thought was odd. The patent says the device emits a signal. Yet, there is no power source or any kind of signal generator which would match what the patent claims is happening. The patent matches the pattern of scientific mumbo jumbo these guys use to explain why they think the antenna points to the target.
The real answer as to why the detectors seem to work is the ideomotor effect. The user has a hunch where the target is, and they subconsciously tilt the device in that direction. None of these devices have any kind of motor, servos, or anything else to point the antenna. They are all on freely pivoting swivels. As you pointed out, they don't need to prove the thing works that way for the patent. It just adds plausible sounding scientific words that can be put in brochures and told to prospective clients.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
Its my job to get to the nitty gritty before I "stamp" my comments LOL and I'm still looking right now.
I and my firm have extensive legal experience from injury claims, warranty claims, commissioning defects, performance claims and such as happens when machines dont perform as claimed, designed,purchased, constructed or operated.
I have learned to start at the "fine print" because thats normally where the truth can be found.
>>>The device and inventor are what is described by the patent.
Yes and no ( contingent on what the drawings Tech is going to email me show) At this point, i have seen enough "language" to establish a legitimate possibility the patented device is radically different than the device presented. But again, let me reinforce the fact I have yet to see the relative drawings so that opinion could change in a nanosecond.
>>>The patent says the device emits a signal. Yet, there is no power source or any kind of signal generator which would match what the patent claims is happening.
This is where "proceed with caution" applies. Its a no brainer that the device MUST have a power source to "generate' anything. However, detail at that level for a patent application normally isnt listed because it can be construed as a "trade secret". ( or in laymans english- you dont have to supply a stamped builders print with machining tolerances and a full schematic- if you did the device could be pirated easily without the need for back engineering)
Thats why i think they MAY simply be scamming off of a patent.
>>>The patent matches the pattern of scientific mumbo jumbo these guys use to explain why they think the antenna points to the target.
True but I saw 1 very significant difference. The patent claims the generator emits a "field" that causes a reaction to the particles and the antenna finds them in general terms. Thats radically different from the "human/machine field" and dowsing rod description in the brochures. Thats why i want to get the dwgs and print them and get my guys to compare them side by side as we get time.
>>>The real answer as to why the detectors seem to work is the ideomotor effect. The user has a hunch where the target is, and they subconsciously tilt the device in that direction. None of these devices have any kind of motor, servos, or anything else to point the antenna.
I could buy that if the antenna was fixed and was picking up field strength like SWR meters or oscilliscopes where you then have to manually attenuate the device and "find" the target. Thats not what they are claiming tho.
>>>It just adds plausible sounding scientific words that can be put in brochures and told to prospective clients
I havent seen those "plausible sounding scientific words" in the brochures yet. I guess i overlooked them.
Techowiz
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 73
Oh No another bloody fraud being marketed and sold from the UK:-
Check out the website does this look familiar??????
Intelligence Counter Security & Surveillance
U.K.Ltd., 39 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU,Tel: 08712641758,Fax:448712648847
www.icssuk.com,
E-mail: [email protected]
PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Early warning indicator and direction finder for explosive and contraband detection function in cold/dry/humid condition.
The System does not require the user to be any less than 200m-300m away from the required substance will direct the operative either to the container or the room where the contraband may.
Once a specific area has been targeted and detected the group of substance by multi-programmable Card and easily pinpointing system to allow safe removal.
PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Technical Specification
Programmable RF Card: 22 type of Programmable RF Card available.
Card Chamber: Multiple Programmable Card holder Max. Capasity-12 piceses.
Detection Probe: New Gold head telescopic antenna.
Scan Type: Scan and area finding targeting a specific group of substance.
Operating Temperature: -6C to 65C temperature
Continuous Operation: Any area work continuous operation more than 5 hours.
Weight: 1.7kg including 12 Card with holder.
Optional
Card Verification Software Window Based
Special Card Reader (Serial Port or USB)
Special Card for Multi-frequency Detector like bomb jammer,hidden wireless 100mhz to 500mhz remote control frequency 850 to 2ghz.
Supply With Standard Package
1. Hand held Detector with gold head antina-1pieces.
2. Card holder (12 Card)-1pieces.
3. Belt holder with clip.
4. Coaxial special wire 1.2m.
5. Special hand gloves -1pair.
6. Spray (Special use)-1 Can.
7. Supply 10 Card as customer demand.
8. User manual-1 pieces.
9. Application user guide CD version-1 pieces.
10. Special Carrying case (acrylic body) -1 pieces
PSD can be used in the detection of the following substances.
Explosive Card Code
Gunpowder 05002155818
High Explosive or Detonable Explosives. 07002133515
DNT 02003155313
TNT 01003122212
RDX 03101020311
C4 04104021301
Semtex 06111301231
PeTN 08904010711
Ammonium Nitrate 09102050171
Nitro Glycerine 07270017213
Dynamite 08202030481
Nitro Esters(PETN, Ethylene,Glycol di Nitrate). 02125121301
Hexogen/Octagen. 02070708131
All forms of Plastic Explosives 01010121301
Drugs Card Code
Cannabis 3050213312781
Cocaine 3040502157728
Heroin 3090405177213
D-Meths 4090779923141
Ecstasy 5090667892313
Amphetamines 6091213465713
Opium 3020904421341
liquid Volatile Drugs 3077263822331
Check out the website does this look familiar??????
Intelligence Counter Security & Surveillance
U.K.Ltd., 39 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU,Tel: 08712641758,Fax:448712648847
www.icssuk.com,
E-mail: [email protected]
PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Early warning indicator and direction finder for explosive and contraband detection function in cold/dry/humid condition.
The System does not require the user to be any less than 200m-300m away from the required substance will direct the operative either to the container or the room where the contraband may.
Once a specific area has been targeted and detected the group of substance by multi-programmable Card and easily pinpointing system to allow safe removal.
PSD-22 Programmable Substance Detector
Technical Specification
Programmable RF Card: 22 type of Programmable RF Card available.
Card Chamber: Multiple Programmable Card holder Max. Capasity-12 piceses.
Detection Probe: New Gold head telescopic antenna.
Scan Type: Scan and area finding targeting a specific group of substance.
Operating Temperature: -6C to 65C temperature
Continuous Operation: Any area work continuous operation more than 5 hours.
Weight: 1.7kg including 12 Card with holder.
Optional
Card Verification Software Window Based
Special Card Reader (Serial Port or USB)
Special Card for Multi-frequency Detector like bomb jammer,hidden wireless 100mhz to 500mhz remote control frequency 850 to 2ghz.
Supply With Standard Package
1. Hand held Detector with gold head antina-1pieces.
2. Card holder (12 Card)-1pieces.
3. Belt holder with clip.
4. Coaxial special wire 1.2m.
5. Special hand gloves -1pair.
6. Spray (Special use)-1 Can.
7. Supply 10 Card as customer demand.
8. User manual-1 pieces.
9. Application user guide CD version-1 pieces.
10. Special Carrying case (acrylic body) -1 pieces
PSD can be used in the detection of the following substances.
Explosive Card Code
Gunpowder 05002155818
High Explosive or Detonable Explosives. 07002133515
DNT 02003155313
TNT 01003122212
RDX 03101020311
C4 04104021301
Semtex 06111301231
PeTN 08904010711
Ammonium Nitrate 09102050171
Nitro Glycerine 07270017213
Dynamite 08202030481
Nitro Esters(PETN, Ethylene,Glycol di Nitrate). 02125121301
Hexogen/Octagen. 02070708131
All forms of Plastic Explosives 01010121301
Drugs Card Code
Cannabis 3050213312781
Cocaine 3040502157728
Heroin 3090405177213
D-Meths 4090779923141
Ecstasy 5090667892313
Amphetamines 6091213465713
Opium 3020904421341
liquid Volatile Drugs 3077263822331
Biff Starbuck
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 276
Longtabber,
Please forgive my exasperation. I appreciate your patience in looking at this with fresh eyes.
Yuri Markov, from the patent, is or was involved with the manufacturer, TASC in Bulgaria, and Sniffex in the US.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/041607dnbussniffex.39c48dd.html
You are correct that the claims in the advertising do not match the claims in the patent.
The Sniffex sellers themselves describe the Sniffex as powered by the "human energy field." Other of these devices say they are powered by the "static electricity generated by the holder's breathing."
My best suggestion is don't be surprised if you find all manner of contradiction in your reading of how these things supposedly work. All too often it is rationalization after the fact for a phenomenon they witnessed (the ideomotor effect) but to which they are trying to come up with another explaination.
Randi exposed the Quadro Tracker almost 15 years ago. The ADE 651 an GT200 are made by some of the same people and appear to be using the same plastic molding.
http://www.skepdic.com/quadro.html
Please forgive my exasperation. I appreciate your patience in looking at this with fresh eyes.
Yuri Markov, from the patent, is or was involved with the manufacturer, TASC in Bulgaria, and Sniffex in the US.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/041607dnbussniffex.39c48dd.html
You are correct that the claims in the advertising do not match the claims in the patent.
The Sniffex sellers themselves describe the Sniffex as powered by the "human energy field." Other of these devices say they are powered by the "static electricity generated by the holder's breathing."
My best suggestion is don't be surprised if you find all manner of contradiction in your reading of how these things supposedly work. All too often it is rationalization after the fact for a phenomenon they witnessed (the ideomotor effect) but to which they are trying to come up with another explaination.
Randi exposed the Quadro Tracker almost 15 years ago. The ADE 651 an GT200 are made by some of the same people and appear to be using the same plastic molding.
http://www.skepdic.com/quadro.html