Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Laser-like beam? RF experts required
237 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Thackery
Mar 7, 2012, 4:50:36 PM3/7/12
to
I've just found this, which looks interesting:
http://adrokgroup.com/
In particular see the Technology and Services page.
Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
technology
It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
Here is what it says on their website about how it works:
>>
Adrok’s technology works by sending a narrow light beam of energy into
the ground using micro and radio waves. The beam is then reflected back
by the various rock layers and the energy changed by the materials it
has passed through on the way.
Reaching great depths, it learns how different substances, including
hydrocarbons, interact with the light waves passing through them and
pinpoints their composition. The technology measures dielectric
permittivity of rock layers in the ground and characterizes the nature
of the rock types based on spectroscopic analyses of the resonant
energy response from Adrok’s transmitted beams reflected back from the
ground.
Adrok’s scanner illuminates the ground by transmitting and receiving
invisible lased EM energy.
The beam is:
Pulsed,
Coherent (narrow band)
Focused for minimal dispersion
Collimated (cylindrical shaped), and contains resonant microwave and
radiowave frequencies
Adrok’s ADR Scanner delivers output measurements based on:
Dielectric Permittivity
Resonant behaviours of molecules
Spectroscopy
<<
I'm mightily puzzled by this, and somewhat sceptical. It sounds too
much like mumbo-jumbo to me, although that might just be down to the
poor copy-writing.
For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
ground and generate detectable reflections from the various interfaces
it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and rock. Can RF
get through water?
Is this "atomic dielectric resonance" a recognised technique for
identifying materials? If so, I wonder why it isn't much more widely
used.
It says it has "low energy use" - certainly low enough to be portable,
anyway - which makes it even more impressive.
Do you guys think there could be anything in this technology? (To be
honest, it sounds like at least two technologies: deep-probing
collimated RF; and identification of materials through the
characteristics of the reflected energy).
If so, it sounds like it could be remarkable - world changing, even.
All comments gratefully received.
--
SteveT
http://adrokgroup.com/
In particular see the Technology and Services page.
Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
technology
It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
Here is what it says on their website about how it works:
>>
Adrok’s technology works by sending a narrow light beam of energy into
the ground using micro and radio waves. The beam is then reflected back
by the various rock layers and the energy changed by the materials it
has passed through on the way.
Reaching great depths, it learns how different substances, including
hydrocarbons, interact with the light waves passing through them and
pinpoints their composition. The technology measures dielectric
permittivity of rock layers in the ground and characterizes the nature
of the rock types based on spectroscopic analyses of the resonant
energy response from Adrok’s transmitted beams reflected back from the
ground.
Adrok’s scanner illuminates the ground by transmitting and receiving
invisible lased EM energy.
The beam is:
Pulsed,
Coherent (narrow band)
Focused for minimal dispersion
Collimated (cylindrical shaped), and contains resonant microwave and
radiowave frequencies
Adrok’s ADR Scanner delivers output measurements based on:
Dielectric Permittivity
Resonant behaviours of molecules
Spectroscopy
<<
I'm mightily puzzled by this, and somewhat sceptical. It sounds too
much like mumbo-jumbo to me, although that might just be down to the
poor copy-writing.
For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
ground and generate detectable reflections from the various interfaces
it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and rock. Can RF
get through water?
Is this "atomic dielectric resonance" a recognised technique for
identifying materials? If so, I wonder why it isn't much more widely
used.
It says it has "low energy use" - certainly low enough to be portable,
anyway - which makes it even more impressive.
Do you guys think there could be anything in this technology? (To be
honest, it sounds like at least two technologies: deep-probing
collimated RF; and identification of materials through the
characteristics of the reflected energy).
If so, it sounds like it could be remarkable - world changing, even.
All comments gratefully received.
--
SteveT
Peter Duncanson
Mar 7, 2012, 5:58:17 PM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>
>http://adrokgroup.com/
>
>In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>
>Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
>into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
>which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
>technology
>
>It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
>invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
>
There is a Wikipedia article about it with more detail. The article was
first created 3 years ago by, surprise, surprise, Colin Stove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_dielectric_resonance
One of the references (without a link) is to a paper in the Journal of
Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
It was a "proof of concept study". I don't know whether the technique
has been developed for routine clinical use. See the conclusions
section:
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41#sec5
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
wrote:
>I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>
>http://adrokgroup.com/
>
>In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>
>Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
>into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
>which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
>technology
>
>It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
>invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
>
first created 3 years ago by, surprise, surprise, Colin Stove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_dielectric_resonance
One of the references (without a link) is to a paper in the Journal of
Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
It was a "proof of concept study". I don't know whether the technique
has been developed for routine clinical use. See the conclusions
section:
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41#sec5
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
R. Mark Clayton
Mar 7, 2012, 8:16:05 PM3/7/12
to
Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
Light will not get very far through rock.
There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far through
the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
NMR might be interesting, but the fields required are massive just to see
through you in hospital lab.
"Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ofCdnQNoWq6xRcrS...@bt.com...
Light will not get very far through rock.
There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far through
the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
NMR might be interesting, but the fields required are massive just to see
through you in hospital lab.
"Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ofCdnQNoWq6xRcrS...@bt.com...
Dave Saville
Mar 8, 2012, 3:22:11 AM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 01:16:05 UTC, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
>
> Light will not get very far through rock.
>
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
> wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far through
> the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
<snip>
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
>
> Light will not get very far through rock.
>
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
> wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far through
> the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
The "traditional" way of deep penetration is sound - and low frequency
at that, like 10s to a few hundred Hz. Goes *very* deep though. Normal
source would be explosives (land or sea), vibrators (mostly land),
weight drop (land) or air/gas/water guns at sea.
--
Regards
Dave Saville
Steve Thackery
Mar 8, 2012, 3:38:29 AM3/8/12
to
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Light will not get very far through rock.
Yes, although that sounds like a badly written description - an attempt
> Light will not get very far through rock.
to explain to the layperson what it is and how it works. Presumably
they're using it as an analogy.
I've tried to look past that, but I still find the claims to be
extraordinary.
--
SteveT
Brian Gaff
Mar 8, 2012, 7:19:36 AM3/8/12
to
Its certainly been flown on some spacecraft already but no doubt more
sophisticated use will be made of it as time goes bay. In the past, close in
reflections have drowned out the deep ones, I think the main thrust of this
is to find a way to be able to get the data under these circumstances.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:u6pfl7p2pgs87hi5i...@4ax.com...
sophisticated use will be made of it as time goes bay. In the past, close in
reflections have drowned out the deep ones, I think the main thrust of this
is to find a way to be able to get the data under these circumstances.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:u6pfl7p2pgs87hi5i...@4ax.com...
Jim Lesurf
Mar 8, 2012, 7:41:42 AM3/8/12
to
In article <0JKdnTpx7ZzLlcXS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
few GHz. The narrow spikes let you then time resolve the reflections. But I
doubt they would penetrate to anything like the depths claimed here.
What I've read does seem to have a lot of technobabble. Can't say what lays
behind that. The PDF of a presentation shows GPR-like plots down to 25
metres which look plausible. But later plots down to km seem to be an
'interpereted result' not raw data. So I have no idea how they were
created.
Alas when 'proprietary' systems are just described in sweeping techospeak
and some claimed results presented, it can be impossible to make sense of
how it works - or not! I did keep an eye out for any sign of patent
numbers, etc, as the patents are *required* to give the game away to be
valid. But didn't spot any.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
> Light will not get very far through rock.
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty
> long wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far
> through the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
IIRC they tend to be ultra-broadband pulses. So cover a wide range up to a
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
> Light will not get very far through rock.
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty
> long wavelength, because in my experience radio waves don't go very far
> through the ground (nothing in tunnels) or the sea.
few GHz. The narrow spikes let you then time resolve the reflections. But I
doubt they would penetrate to anything like the depths claimed here.
What I've read does seem to have a lot of technobabble. Can't say what lays
behind that. The PDF of a presentation shows GPR-like plots down to 25
metres which look plausible. But later plots down to km seem to be an
'interpereted result' not raw data. So I have no idea how they were
created.
Alas when 'proprietary' systems are just described in sweeping techospeak
and some claimed results presented, it can be impossible to make sense of
how it works - or not! I did keep an eye out for any sign of patent
numbers, etc, as the patents are *required* to give the game away to be
valid. But didn't spot any.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Jim Lesurf
Mar 8, 2012, 7:33:28 AM3/8/12
to
In article <u6pfl7p2pgs87hi5i...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
you can use lasers to look into flesh, etc. The trick is to only detect the
'first return' reflected components [1] as that then discriminates against
light that has been repeatedly scattered. The difficulty is to get this
working at 'long range' penerations as the level of return is so low, and
the time discrimination, etc, get difficult.
FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
Slainte,
Jim
[1] or 'first though' for transmission.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> w
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> w
> One of the references (without a link) is to a paper in the Journal of
> Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
> screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
> sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
> http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
Not checked the above. But I know from work of others in my old dept that
> Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
> screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
> sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
> http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
you can use lasers to look into flesh, etc. The trick is to only detect the
'first return' reflected components [1] as that then discriminates against
light that has been repeatedly scattered. The difficulty is to get this
working at 'long range' penerations as the level of return is so low, and
the time discrimination, etc, get difficult.
FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
Slainte,
Jim
[1] or 'first though' for transmission.
Java Jive
Mar 8, 2012, 7:52:32 AM3/8/12
to
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase:
"Did the earth move for you, Darling?"
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:22:11 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"
<da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Normal
> source would be ... vibrators (mostly land),
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
"Did the earth move for you, Darling?"
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:22:11 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"
<da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Normal
> source would be ... vibrators (mostly land),
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Peter Duncanson
Mar 8, 2012, 9:28:17 AM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:33:28 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <u6pfl7p2pgs87hi5i...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
>> w
>
>> One of the references (without a link) is to a paper in the Journal of
>> Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
>> screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
>> sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
>> http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
>
>Not checked the above. But I know from work of others in my old dept that
>you can use lasers to look into flesh, etc. The trick is to only detect the
>'first return' reflected components [1] as that then discriminates against
>light that has been repeatedly scattered. The difficulty is to get this
>working at 'long range' penerations as the level of return is so low, and
>the time discrimination, etc, get difficult.
>
>FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
>pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
>wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
>
The paper I linked to above says:
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <u6pfl7p2pgs87hi5i...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
>> w
>
>> One of the references (without a link) is to a paper in the Journal of
>> Translational Medicine. The ADR process has been used for "for the
>> screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and
>> sporadic CJD". The full text of the paper is available here:
>> http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/5/1/41
>
>Not checked the above. But I know from work of others in my old dept that
>you can use lasers to look into flesh, etc. The trick is to only detect the
>'first return' reflected components [1] as that then discriminates against
>light that has been repeatedly scattered. The difficulty is to get this
>working at 'long range' penerations as the level of return is so low, and
>the time discrimination, etc, get difficult.
>
>FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
>pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
>wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
>
ADRS apparatus and sampling
The ADRS hardware for this study consisted of a radiowave sampling
control unit (RCU), a pulse generator (PG) and a Test Sample Chamber
(TSC) in which individual samples were placed which incorporated a
transmitting and receiving antenna array. Resonant scan-returns were
received from the illuminated samples in their containers in a 90
degree cross polarised mode and then transferred directly to a PC
where the image data were digitally stored.
Samples (500 microL) were dispensed into the same batch of 2 mL
polypropylene tubes with caps and placed onto a spot within the
sample chamber. Four scans of each sample were taken. Scans were
also taken on empty tubes for subtraction of spectra. As far as we
could ensure, no artefacts were introduced from any differences in
handling, storage, or dispensing of samples. Sample codes for each
sample were recorded with spectral data and stored in the linked
data acquisition computer.
Samples were pulsed with radar in the spectral range 0–25000 MHz and
spectral frequency and energy measurements (images) were classified
using energy bins. The image data were first subjected to fast
Fourier transform (FFT) analysis using the RADAMATIC software,
proprietary software developed by Radar World Ltd, which is
optimised for analysing the Atomic Dielectric Resonance behaviour of
materials when subjected to a coherent beam of lased invisible light
photons. The bandwidth of the pulsed transmit (Tx) energy was 1 GHz
but the ADR spectral responses were analysed from the received (Rx)
digital signals by FFT methods using 1024 point samples in each case
from 100 MHz to 51.2 GHz.
Note that the highest frequency mentioned is 51.2 GHz. That is way below
the frequency of visible light, 405 THz to 790 THz, or even infra-red, 1
to 400 THz.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 8, 2012, 10:55:39 AM3/8/12
to
In article <orfhl7t68fmno120q...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
> Samples (500 microL) were dispensed into the same batch of 2 mL
> polypropylene tubes with caps and placed onto a spot within the
> sample chamber.
[snip]
> Samples were pulsed with radar in the spectral range 0-25000 MHz and
"chamber" in conjunction with the measurement system. It is also possible
from the wording that some like of 'laser' was used to probe or interact in
the sample with the RF. I know of various ways you could use a mix of RF
and 'light' to analyse samples or do spatial measurements in limited
'sample' types of case.
e.g. Use short laser pulses to excite the electrons in the material and
note any 'ring down' effects as they relax and become a ground state
dielectric again by detecting RF, or spin, or whatever.
Or do it t'other way around and use the RF pulse to excite the material and
detect the effects via laser.
Might even be quadrupole resonance effects for all I know from the
wordings. (see below.) Or something else. The cross-polar comments make it
look like some kind of ESR or NMR or high order equivalent. Fine for a
sample in a system.
Lacking details you can make up 'possibilities' for the sample case. Which
are snarks or boojums, who knows?... :-)
The wording tells you various trivial details like "1024 point samples".
But little or nothing about the guts of the process beyond covering it with
the nice word "proprietary". Terms like "energy bins" are also used above
without clearly saying what is meant in a way that would contribute to an
explanation.
None of which would explain the stuff about claiming to detect at depths of
many km with a spatial resolution of a metre. That is what I couldn't see
and explanation for and puzzles me. It is easy enough to look for nonlinear
interactions, etc, in samples in a sample chamber. Quite different to some
of what is claimed or described for the parts about looking deep into the
ground. If there is an explanation for that, I've not seen it yet so far as
I can tell.
For GPR I doubt that components up to 25GHz would penetrate usefully to
scales like kilometers. Ditto for 'lasers'. At LF the ground losses will
rise swiftly with frequency, I'd suspect. Nor clear how you'd get 1 metre
cross-wise resolution at km distances with the kit shown with frequencies
so low or with the vague mentions of 'laser' 'light' etc.
In air (or vacuum), yes, I can think of ways it could be done, and indeed,
has been for some ways. But though kilometers of assorted rocks, etc?...
TBH I also found it odd that the presentation I read jumped from GPR like
plots for 0 - 25m to curious wiggly lines for down to kilometers. And the
SNR didn't seem to degrade with depth in what I saw.
So what is being done may be fine and clever. But I've not yet seen an
explanation that clarifies this. What I've read seems more like PR with
assorted buzzwords to make it 'scientific'.
Of course, vague techobabble can be used simply to stop anyone else
learning how to copy a "proprietary" process. Bafflegab designed to prevent
others understanding - or being able to criticise. Some prefer this to
patents which require an explanation sufficient to duplicate what it
claimed. In the end this always fails because once it is established that
something can be done, others will work out how to do it. Yet it may well
be that the system is superb even if we can't find a clear description of
how it really works.
So we could dream up various 'possible' ways how what it claimed is done,
by making suitably wild assumptions, etc. But that wouldn't tell us if our
guess was correct, or if the claims are true... or not. That's why
"proprietary" tends to conflict with science and engineering progress if
based on secrecy and bafflegab, and why patents were brought into being.
Baloney baffles brains. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:33:28 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:33:28 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
> >pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
> >wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
> >
> The paper I linked to above says:
> ADRS apparatus and sampling
>
[snip]
> >FWIW The groups that I know who did this used picosecond (or shorter)
> >pulses for the probe and for detection. If the pulses / gating is too
> >wide you end up having the signal lost in the 'fog' of scattered output.
> >
> The paper I linked to above says:
> ADRS apparatus and sampling
>
> Samples (500 microL) were dispensed into the same batch of 2 mL
> polypropylene tubes with caps and placed onto a spot within the
> sample chamber.
> Samples were pulsed with radar in the spectral range 0-25000 MHz and
> spectral frequency and energy measurements (images) were classified
> using energy bins. The image data were first subjected to fast
> Fourier transform (FFT) analysis using the RADAMATIC software,
> proprietary software developed by Radar World Ltd, which is
> optimised for analysing the Atomic Dielectric Resonance behaviour of
> materials when subjected to a coherent beam of lased invisible light
> photons. The bandwidth of the pulsed transmit (Tx) energy was 1 GHz
> but the ADR spectral responses were analysed from the received (Rx)
> digital signals by FFT methods using 1024 point samples in each case
> from 100 MHz to 51.2 GHz.
> Note that the highest frequency mentioned is 51.2 GHz. That is way below
> the frequency of visible light, 405 THz to 790 THz, or even infra-red, 1
> to 400 THz.
Well, what you quoted makes some kind of sense for *samples* held in a
> using energy bins. The image data were first subjected to fast
> Fourier transform (FFT) analysis using the RADAMATIC software,
> proprietary software developed by Radar World Ltd, which is
> optimised for analysing the Atomic Dielectric Resonance behaviour of
> materials when subjected to a coherent beam of lased invisible light
> photons. The bandwidth of the pulsed transmit (Tx) energy was 1 GHz
> but the ADR spectral responses were analysed from the received (Rx)
> digital signals by FFT methods using 1024 point samples in each case
> from 100 MHz to 51.2 GHz.
> Note that the highest frequency mentioned is 51.2 GHz. That is way below
> the frequency of visible light, 405 THz to 790 THz, or even infra-red, 1
> to 400 THz.
"chamber" in conjunction with the measurement system. It is also possible
from the wording that some like of 'laser' was used to probe or interact in
the sample with the RF. I know of various ways you could use a mix of RF
and 'light' to analyse samples or do spatial measurements in limited
'sample' types of case.
e.g. Use short laser pulses to excite the electrons in the material and
note any 'ring down' effects as they relax and become a ground state
dielectric again by detecting RF, or spin, or whatever.
Or do it t'other way around and use the RF pulse to excite the material and
detect the effects via laser.
Might even be quadrupole resonance effects for all I know from the
wordings. (see below.) Or something else. The cross-polar comments make it
look like some kind of ESR or NMR or high order equivalent. Fine for a
sample in a system.
Lacking details you can make up 'possibilities' for the sample case. Which
are snarks or boojums, who knows?... :-)
The wording tells you various trivial details like "1024 point samples".
But little or nothing about the guts of the process beyond covering it with
the nice word "proprietary". Terms like "energy bins" are also used above
without clearly saying what is meant in a way that would contribute to an
explanation.
None of which would explain the stuff about claiming to detect at depths of
many km with a spatial resolution of a metre. That is what I couldn't see
and explanation for and puzzles me. It is easy enough to look for nonlinear
interactions, etc, in samples in a sample chamber. Quite different to some
of what is claimed or described for the parts about looking deep into the
ground. If there is an explanation for that, I've not seen it yet so far as
I can tell.
For GPR I doubt that components up to 25GHz would penetrate usefully to
scales like kilometers. Ditto for 'lasers'. At LF the ground losses will
rise swiftly with frequency, I'd suspect. Nor clear how you'd get 1 metre
cross-wise resolution at km distances with the kit shown with frequencies
so low or with the vague mentions of 'laser' 'light' etc.
In air (or vacuum), yes, I can think of ways it could be done, and indeed,
has been for some ways. But though kilometers of assorted rocks, etc?...
TBH I also found it odd that the presentation I read jumped from GPR like
plots for 0 - 25m to curious wiggly lines for down to kilometers. And the
SNR didn't seem to degrade with depth in what I saw.
So what is being done may be fine and clever. But I've not yet seen an
explanation that clarifies this. What I've read seems more like PR with
assorted buzzwords to make it 'scientific'.
Of course, vague techobabble can be used simply to stop anyone else
learning how to copy a "proprietary" process. Bafflegab designed to prevent
others understanding - or being able to criticise. Some prefer this to
patents which require an explanation sufficient to duplicate what it
claimed. In the end this always fails because once it is established that
something can be done, others will work out how to do it. Yet it may well
be that the system is superb even if we can't find a clear description of
how it really works.
So we could dream up various 'possible' ways how what it claimed is done,
by making suitably wild assumptions, etc. But that wouldn't tell us if our
guess was correct, or if the claims are true... or not. That's why
"proprietary" tends to conflict with science and engineering progress if
based on secrecy and bafflegab, and why patents were brought into being.
Baloney baffles brains. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
Dave Saville
Mar 8, 2012, 12:28:35 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:52:32 UTC, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase:
> "Did the earth move for you, Darling?"
>
LOL - In fact the Earth moves more with explosives. Even a pound or so
of dynamite down a shot hole makes the ground buck under you.
Vibrators use a swept frequency like 10 to 140 Hz. They were testing
one once next to a "temporary" steel framed building - and the frame
bolts started to undo themselves..........
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:22:11 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"
> <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Normal
> > source would be ... vibrators (mostly land),
>
--
Regards
Dave Saville
wrote:
> Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase:
> "Did the earth move for you, Darling?"
>
of dynamite down a shot hole makes the ground buck under you.
Vibrators use a swept frequency like 10 to 140 Hz. They were testing
one once next to a "temporary" steel framed building - and the frame
bolts started to undo themselves..........
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:22:11 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"
> <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Normal
> > source would be ... vibrators (mostly land),
>
--
Dave Saville
Steve Hayes
Mar 8, 2012, 3:07:48 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:16:05 +0000, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
[snip]
> Sounds like a lot of b******ks.
>
> "Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ofCdnQNoWq6xRcrS...@bt.com...
>> I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>>
>> http://adrokgroup.com/
>>
>> In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>>
>> Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
>> into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
>> which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
>> technology
>>
[snip]
> "Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ofCdnQNoWq6xRcrS...@bt.com...
>> I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>>
>> http://adrokgroup.com/
>>
>> In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>>
>> Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
>> into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
>> which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
>> technology
>>
Sounds a bit like the contraption that the French government was told
many years ago could see underground oil deposits from a plane. Of course
that was a massive scam...
--
Steve Hayes, South Wales, UK - remove colours from address
David Woolley
Mar 8, 2012, 5:34:45 PM3/8/12
to
Peter Duncanson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>
> There is a Wikipedia article about it with more detail. The article was
> first created 3 years ago by, surprise, surprise, Colin Stove.
I hope it has been tagged as original research and probably an NPOV
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:50:36 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>
> There is a Wikipedia article about it with more detail. The article was
> first created 3 years ago by, surprise, surprise, Colin Stove.
violation, then.
David Woolley
Mar 8, 2012, 5:48:35 PM3/8/12
to
Steve Thackery wrote:
>
> For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
Yes. Just use a large enough antenna! You cannot get a narrow beam
>
> For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
from a source which is only a small number of wavelengths across.
That's a physical impossibility. Incidentally nearly all RF systems are
laser-like in the sense that they are coherent sources.
Collimated beams are standard practice with air surveillance radar.
> feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
> ground and generate detectable reflections from the various interfaces
> it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and rock. Can RF
> get through water?
military use ELF for low bandwidth signalling to submarines, but I think
the submarine then needs to deploy a higher frequency antenna to get the
main message.
As described here, I would have no confidence in the technology.
Peter Duncanson
Mar 8, 2012, 6:10:13 PM3/8/12
to
that were published before the article. Gordon Stove was co-author of
two and author of one.
One paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, one was presented at
an international conference, and I'm not sure about the third.
He therefore doesn't seem to fall foul of the WP "no original research"
rule:
The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to
material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no
reliable, published sources exist.
Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills. His degree is a
BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/gordon-stove/12/7b4/69b
Jim Lesurf
Mar 9, 2012, 4:24:07 AM3/9/12
to
In article <itdil75s8b08iv7rm...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
> His degree is a
> BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
> http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/gordon-stove/12/7b4/69b
So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a geographer
who is clueless about how the technology actually works. That is plausible,
but still leaves the puzzle of how it does work... if it does... for the
claims about sensing to great depths. As it stands, what I've read about
that reads a lot like the kind of technobabble I read a lot about loony 'hi
fi' items. Lots of buzzwords and plausible phrases, but doesn't seem to fit
together as a clear explanation that makes sense, and may simply not work
as claimed.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
Who are?...
> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
> His degree is a
> BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
> http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/gordon-stove/12/7b4/69b
who is clueless about how the technology actually works. That is plausible,
but still leaves the puzzle of how it does work... if it does... for the
claims about sensing to great depths. As it stands, what I've read about
that reads a lot like the kind of technobabble I read a lot about loony 'hi
fi' items. Lots of buzzwords and plausible phrases, but doesn't seem to fit
together as a clear explanation that makes sense, and may simply not work
as claimed.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 9, 2012, 4:29:35 AM3/9/12
to
In article <jjbd05$n8i$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
shaped laser beam to heat a path, shaped to act like an 'optical fibre' for
the RF. I know this has been tested and does work. But in air in suitable
conditions. Not in complex rock structures!
> > feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
> > ground and generate detectable reflections from the various
> > interfaces it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and
> > rock. Can RF get through water?
> I think that depends on the frequency and the purity of the water. The
> military use ELF for low bandwidth signalling to submarines, but I think
> the submarine then needs to deploy a higher frequency antenna to get
> the main message.
The ELF is OK provided you don't need a high bitrate.
> As described here, I would have no confidence in the technology.
Ditto. But maybe there are some research papers somewhere, written by
someone involved who really does understand and manages to explain. Can't
tell from what I've read.
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> Steve Thackery wrote:
> >
> > For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
> Yes. Just use a large enough antenna! You cannot get a narrow beam
> from a source which is only a small number of wavelengths across.
> That's a physical impossibility. Incidentally nearly all RF systems are
> laser-like in the sense that they are coherent sources.
> Collimated beams are standard practice with air surveillance radar.
There are also ways to get a laser to generate a 'guide' for RF. e.g. use a
> Steve Thackery wrote:
> >
> > For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
> Yes. Just use a large enough antenna! You cannot get a narrow beam
> from a source which is only a small number of wavelengths across.
> That's a physical impossibility. Incidentally nearly all RF systems are
> laser-like in the sense that they are coherent sources.
> Collimated beams are standard practice with air surveillance radar.
shaped laser beam to heat a path, shaped to act like an 'optical fibre' for
the RF. I know this has been tested and does work. But in air in suitable
conditions. Not in complex rock structures!
> > feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
> > ground and generate detectable reflections from the various
> > interfaces it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and
> > rock. Can RF get through water?
> I think that depends on the frequency and the purity of the water. The
> military use ELF for low bandwidth signalling to submarines, but I think
> the submarine then needs to deploy a higher frequency antenna to get
> the main message.
> As described here, I would have no confidence in the technology.
someone involved who really does understand and manages to explain. Can't
tell from what I've read.
Bill Wright
Mar 9, 2012, 10:05:41 AM3/9/12
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
His degree is a > BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
His degree is a > BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
> So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a geographer
> who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
But surely, if education has any meaning at all, his BSc must enable him
> who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
to recognise that he is clueless in a particular area. Isn't that what a
science education is supposed to all about? If yer don't know, don't
fucking make it up?
Bill
Peter Duncanson
Mar 9, 2012, 10:06:20 AM3/9/12
to
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:24:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <itdil75s8b08iv7rm...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
>> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
>
>Who are?...
>
The authors of the paper in the Journal of Transaltion Medicine are
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <itdil75s8b08iv7rm...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
>> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
>
>Who are?...
>
listed as:
Timothy J Fagge1, G Robin Barclay2*, G Colin Stove3, Gordon Stove3,
Michael J Robinson3, Mark W Head1, James W Ironside1 and Marc L
Turner2
Author Affiliations
1 National CJD Surveillance Unit & Division of Pathology, University
of Edinburgh School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Western
General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK
2 SNBTS Adult Cell Therapy Group, Scottish Centre for Regenerative
Medicine, University of Edinburgh School of Clinical Sciences, The
Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16
4SB, UK
3 ADROK Ltd (formerly Radar World Ltd), Waterloo House, 17 Waterloo
Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3BG, UK
I haven't found details of all of them online, but what I have found
suggests qualifications and experience in medicine and bio-sciences. I
would have been happy to find at least one physicist or similar
involved.
>> His degree is a
>> BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
>> http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/gordon-stove/12/7b4/69b
>
>So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a geographer
>who is clueless about how the technology actually works. That is plausible,
>but still leaves the puzzle of how it does work... if it does... for the
>claims about sensing to great depths. As it stands, what I've read about
>that reads a lot like the kind of technobabble I read a lot about loony 'hi
>fi' items. Lots of buzzwords and plausible phrases, but doesn't seem to fit
>together as a clear explanation that makes sense, and may simply not work
>as claimed.
>
biological samples a few centimetres, at most, from the detector and
peering through 100s or 1000s of metres of rock, etc.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 9, 2012, 11:02:02 AM3/9/12
to
In article <jjd68a$vu8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
to 'explain' what he has been told by someone else. So may be presenting
info in good faith, even if the result turned out to be muddled or
incorrect. And a BSc isn't a research degree. But he was chosen to make the
presentations, etc, for one reason or another.
> Isn't that what a science education is supposed to all about? If yer
> don't know, don't fucking make it up?
Agreed. But so far as Geography is concerned, he may be quite capable in
his own field <pun alert>! ;->
The problem with technobabble produced by companies about "proprietary"
products or processes is that it may rely on baloney baffles brains to
cover over either really significant work they want to keep others from
being able to duplicate *or* tosh.
<bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> His degree is a > BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
> > So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a
> > geographer who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
> But surely, if education has any meaning at all, his BSc must enable him
> to recognise that he is clueless in a particular area.
For all I know, he is aware of that. But is writing on the basis of trying
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> His degree is a > BSc Hons, Geography from the University of Edinburgh.
> > So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a
> > geographer who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
> But surely, if education has any meaning at all, his BSc must enable him
> to recognise that he is clueless in a particular area.
to 'explain' what he has been told by someone else. So may be presenting
info in good faith, even if the result turned out to be muddled or
incorrect. And a BSc isn't a research degree. But he was chosen to make the
presentations, etc, for one reason or another.
> Isn't that what a science education is supposed to all about? If yer
> don't know, don't fucking make it up?
his own field <pun alert>! ;->
The problem with technobabble produced by companies about "proprietary"
products or processes is that it may rely on baloney baffles brains to
cover over either really significant work they want to keep others from
being able to duplicate *or* tosh.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 9, 2012, 10:47:47 AM3/9/12
to
In article <1u4kl713bmsrbq335...@4ax.com>, Peter
As well as all being apparently 'medical' in their background, that does
seem to be centered again on local or sampled measurements. Not on
measurements with 1 metre transverse resolution though many kilometers of
assorted rocks, etc.
> 3 ADROK Ltd (formerly Radar World Ltd), Waterloo House, 17 Waterloo
> Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3BG, UK
> I haven't found details of all of them online, but what I have found
> suggests qualifications and experience in medicine and bio-sciences. I
> would have been happy to find at least one physicist or similar
> involved.
So would I. A compamy isn't even an author in any real sense.
Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:24:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <itdil75s8b08iv7rm...@4ax.com>, Peter
> >Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
> >> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
> >
> >Who are?...
> >
> The authors of the paper in the Journal of Transaltion Medicine are
> listed as:
[snip list]
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:24:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <itdil75s8b08iv7rm...@4ax.com>, Peter
> >Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Stove may be more of a entrepreneur, manager and front-man for people
> >> with scientific and engineering knowledge and skills.
> >
> >Who are?...
> >
> The authors of the paper in the Journal of Transaltion Medicine are
> listed as:
As well as all being apparently 'medical' in their background, that does
seem to be centered again on local or sampled measurements. Not on
measurements with 1 metre transverse resolution though many kilometers of
assorted rocks, etc.
> 3 ADROK Ltd (formerly Radar World Ltd), Waterloo House, 17 Waterloo
> Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3BG, UK
> I haven't found details of all of them online, but what I have found
> suggests qualifications and experience in medicine and bio-sciences. I
> would have been happy to find at least one physicist or similar
> involved.
Steve Thackery
Mar 9, 2012, 1:19:21 PM3/9/12
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a geographer
> who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
OK, I need to be really careful here. I know the guy (or rather, our
> So the 'communications problem' may be a result of him being a geographer
> who is clueless about how the technology actually works.
paths crossed professionally about ten years ago). I need to be
careful because I don't want to get anybody sued.
I worked in the R&D department of a large telecommunications company,
and we were looking for innovative ways to examine the buried portion
of wood poles for decay, without having to excavate the ground around
them (which is expensive and time consuming).
Colin Stove's company was called Radar World back then, and he claimed
that his technology could meet our needs. The radar beam would pass
through the ground and into the buried portion of the pole. The Atomic
Dielectric Resonance stuff would clearly differentiate the different
materials: soil, good wood and decayed wood, such that the user could
be presented with a picture of the pole, with any decayed portions
clearly indicated.
My company paid them to conduct a trial and demonstration of the
technology.
I think I can safely say the following... We didn't get the actual
imaging feature. Instead, the data went away to Radar World where they
processed it and produced a report for us, with diagrams. Meanwhile we
extracted all the tested poles and sliced them up along their length so
we could get a definitive view on the presence, or not, of decay voids.
There was no apparent corellation between Radar World's reported
findings and our own, taken from the actual sawn up poles. Thus we
decided not to proceed further.
I would add a couple of things. Firstly, Colin Stove is a very
convincing advocate of his technology, with a high level of confidence
in it (indeed, that is understating it). Secondly, he is quite clear:
the technology is his own invention (he definitely isn't fronting it
for the real inventor).
He wouldn't explain to me how it works, but in conversation he claimed
to have discovered a new insight into the way electromagnetic radiation
works, and that is what enabled him to invent this new technology.
He showed me some previous claimed successes: one was a picture of a
horse and cart buried deep within the fabric of a stone bridge. The
other was supposed to be a picture of part of an aircraft, buried deep
in the mud at the bottom of a lake.
The pictures didn't look like anything to me, but to be fair they may
need some practice or skill to interpret.
At the time I was extremely puzzled by how the technology could
actually work, but open minded.
Recently I thought about Radar World again and looked them up. I saw
they are making exactly the same claims as when I used them, which led
to me asking you guys for your own views. After all, it is extremely
intriguing.
--
SteveT
Steve Thackery
Mar 9, 2012, 1:28:58 PM3/9/12
to
Looking at the photos on their website, the antennae seem very odd.
Now, let me state straight away that I have NO knowledge of RF
engineering at all.
But... my understanding is that ground penetrating radars have some
sort of downward facing parabolic reflector which is suspended a couple
of inches above the ground. This fits in with my vague understanding
of RF, and how you would project the RF energy in a reasonably tight
beam into the ground (and detect the reflections).
But Adrok's antennae look like very slender rods, or rather tubes.
There doesn't seem to be room for much of a parabolic reflector. And
in any case, why is the tube so long? A tiny reflector wouldn't need a
tube like that, would it?
So, could it be that the tube really is some kind of RF "laser" (note
the quotation marks)? It seems to align with the suggestion that he
can produce a narrow, pretty intense, laser-like beam of RF.
Is there any possibility in the science of RF, and RF engineering, that
you could somehow project a thin beam of RF out of the end of a long
tube? Can an antenna work like that?
Could he have something?
--
SteveT
Now, let me state straight away that I have NO knowledge of RF
engineering at all.
But... my understanding is that ground penetrating radars have some
sort of downward facing parabolic reflector which is suspended a couple
of inches above the ground. This fits in with my vague understanding
of RF, and how you would project the RF energy in a reasonably tight
beam into the ground (and detect the reflections).
But Adrok's antennae look like very slender rods, or rather tubes.
There doesn't seem to be room for much of a parabolic reflector. And
in any case, why is the tube so long? A tiny reflector wouldn't need a
tube like that, would it?
So, could it be that the tube really is some kind of RF "laser" (note
the quotation marks)? It seems to align with the suggestion that he
can produce a narrow, pretty intense, laser-like beam of RF.
Is there any possibility in the science of RF, and RF engineering, that
you could somehow project a thin beam of RF out of the end of a long
tube? Can an antenna work like that?
Could he have something?
--
SteveT
Peter Duncanson
Mar 9, 2012, 2:14:18 PM3/9/12
to
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:19:21 GMT, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Very interesting.
Colin Stove's patent for <take a deep breath>
RADAR APPARATUS FOR IMAGING AND/OR SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS AND METHODS OF
PERFORMING IMAGING AND/OR SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A SUBSTANCE FOR
DIMENSIONAL MEASUREMENT, IDENTIFICATION AND PRECISION RADAR MAPPING
is at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmhttp://tinyurl.com/6s9u2v8l&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6864826
or
http://tinyurl.com/6s9u2v8
I haven't read it yet.
I remain deeply sceptical.
wrote:
Colin Stove's patent for <take a deep breath>
RADAR APPARATUS FOR IMAGING AND/OR SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS AND METHODS OF
PERFORMING IMAGING AND/OR SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A SUBSTANCE FOR
DIMENSIONAL MEASUREMENT, IDENTIFICATION AND PRECISION RADAR MAPPING
is at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmhttp://tinyurl.com/6s9u2v8l&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6864826
or
http://tinyurl.com/6s9u2v8
I haven't read it yet.
I remain deeply sceptical.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 10, 2012, 4:36:07 AM3/10/12
to
In article <OtadnZ3D3v921sfS...@bt.com>, Steve Thackery
something like a flat array. They also tend to come in boxes that aren't
'deep' enough for a decent parabola.
> Is there any possibility in the science of RF, and RF engineering, that
> you could somehow project a thin beam of RF out of the end of a long
> tube? Can an antenna work like that?
Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is to
simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where 'geophys'
use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements use coils along
the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against the general background.
And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure to
generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other ways.
Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
So I can imagine all kinds of 'possible' reasons. But have no idea from
what I've read if any of them have anything to do with what is claimed by
the reports we have been discussing. For all I know, this is just
'dowsing' in another form.
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Looking at the photos on their website, the antennae seem very odd.
> Now, let me state straight away that I have NO knowledge of RF
> engineering at all.
> But... my understanding is that ground penetrating radars have some
> sort of downward facing parabolic reflector which is suspended a couple
> of inches above the ground.
You may be correct. But IIUC the ones I've had anything to do with use
> Looking at the photos on their website, the antennae seem very odd.
> Now, let me state straight away that I have NO knowledge of RF
> engineering at all.
> But... my understanding is that ground penetrating radars have some
> sort of downward facing parabolic reflector which is suspended a couple
> of inches above the ground.
something like a flat array. They also tend to come in boxes that aren't
'deep' enough for a decent parabola.
> Is there any possibility in the science of RF, and RF engineering, that
> you could somehow project a thin beam of RF out of the end of a long
> tube? Can an antenna work like that?
simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where 'geophys'
use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements use coils along
the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against the general background.
And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure to
generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other ways.
Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
So I can imagine all kinds of 'possible' reasons. But have no idea from
what I've read if any of them have anything to do with what is claimed by
the reports we have been discussing. For all I know, this is just
'dowsing' in another form.
Message has been deleted
David Woolley
Mar 10, 2012, 5:24:22 AM3/10/12
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is to
> simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
> log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
> physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
The tube would have to be radio transparent. If you used a conducting
> Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is to
> simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
> log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
> physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
tube, the beamwidth would still be determined by the ratio of the
physical aperture to the wavelength.
>
> Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
> 'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
In which case the antenna is the outside surface of the tube.
> Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
> 'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
>
>
> And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure to
> generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other ways.
> Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
This would, of course, drill the rock, and would be far from a
>
> And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure to
> generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other ways.
> Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
non-destructive mechanism!
David Woolley
Mar 10, 2012, 5:36:22 AM3/10/12
to
Steve Thackery wrote:
>
> So, could it be that the tube really is some kind of RF "laser" (note
> the quotation marks)? It seems to align with the suggestion that he can
> produce a narrow, pretty intense, laser-like beam of RF.
>
There is a certain mystique about lasers in the popular imagination.
>
> So, could it be that the tube really is some kind of RF "laser" (note
> the quotation marks)? It seems to align with the suggestion that he can
> produce a narrow, pretty intense, laser-like beam of RF.
>
The only reason that they produce narrow beams is that they produce
coherent wavefronts, and have exit apertures that are large compared
with the wavelength (easy at optical frequencies). In fact, for
semiconductor lasers, the initial source actually behaves more like a
point source, with a widely diverging beam, and the narrow beam is
created by using a lens.
Lasers were used in radio, and were called masers (microwave, rather
than light). Their main use was for amplifying low level signals,
something for which semiconductor devices can now do at least as well,
rather than for producing high power beams.
Most radio technologies intrinsically produce coherent radiation, so, in
terms of beam forming most radio systems are laser like. Like lasers,
they can only produce narrow beams if the radiating area is large.
I think at least some atomic clock technologies still use masers, but
this is for their frequency stability, not for anything to do with high
powers or beam forming.
Peter Duncanson
Mar 10, 2012, 7:11:13 AM3/10/12
to
It is primarily concerned with the design of the transmitting and
receiving antennas.
The first part of the description says:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
(1) Field of the Invention
This invention relates to radar apparatus and methods of use thereof
for imaging and/or spectrometric a analysis. In particular, it
relates to pulsed radar apparatus for magnifying, imaging, scale
measuring, identifying and/or typecasting the composition of a
substance by radargrammetric imaging and/or spectrometric analysis.
The invention further relates to the use of the radar apparatus to
locate and/or distinguish a substance from other substances. The
invention may additionally be used to image a substance/feature and
to monitor the movement of an imaged substance/feature. Such moving
substances/features include but are not limited to the flow of blood
and other substances moving within a human or animal body, and
substances/features in a subterranean environment, such as the
movement of water, oil, gas and/or contaminants below the ground
surface, below standing or flowing water bodies, or below sea level
and the seabed.
This is a patent application not a peer-reviewed paper. It is not
claiming that the system will be able to detect things at any and all
depths below the surface of the ground or below the surface of a body of
water. It is just covering all circumstances in which the invention
*might* be effective.
The whole document seems to be morte like a "blind them with science"
sales presentation rather than a patent application.
One of the sales presentation aspects is:
The RCU-computer linkage will normally be a serial or parallel port
connection, since the required data rates are not unusually high.
Other possible links include USB, PCMCIA, IrD or radio modem.
Yes, but not relevant to the details of the invention.
Peter Duncanson
Mar 10, 2012, 7:15:35 AM3/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:24:22 +0000, David Woolley
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is to
>> simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
>> log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
>> physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
>
>The tube would have to be radio transparent. If you used a conducting
>tube, the beamwidth would still be determined by the ratio of the
>physical aperture to the wavelength.
>>
>> Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
>> 'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
>
>In which case the antenna is the outside surface of the tube.
Not according to the diagrams in the patent document.
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is to
>> simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement yagi or
>> log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length' rather than the
>> physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
>
>The tube would have to be radio transparent. If you used a conducting
>tube, the beamwidth would still be determined by the ratio of the
>physical aperture to the wavelength.
>>
>> Alternatively it might be a set of loops acting as a phased array. Or a
>> 'leaky coax' transmission line that end-fires.
>
>In which case the antenna is the outside surface of the tube.
The document is available as a pdf file at:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6864826.pdf
>>
>>
>> And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure to
>> generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other ways.
>> Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
>
>This would, of course, drill the rock, and would be far from a
>non-destructive mechanism!
Jim Lesurf
Mar 10, 2012, 7:32:47 AM3/10/12
to
In article <akbml7lmu1pdvcoi7...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
> The whole document seems to be morte like a "blind them with science"
> sales presentation rather than a patent application.
Patents - perhaps particularly US ones, can tend to be as vague and
sweeping in language as possible. The idea being to then try and use the
grant of patent as a way to claim as many things as possible.
Hence all the bonkers patents that companies like MicroSoft use to try and
claim they own things like double-click with a mouse on an icon.
The reality is that the USA in particular tend to grant patents and then
leave it to a court to see if it will stand up when contested. IIRC they
ban 'perpetual motion' because they realised that was too open a goal for
the more loony end of patent 'ideas'. But below that they tend to accept
all kinds of blarney. I particularly enjoyed some very long (well over 100
pages) ones by a 'fancy cable' company who tried to patent having the
strands of wire in the cable helixed in particular ways with all kinds of
claims about this improved the sound. 8-]
So a patent can show what is going on. But may also show that it simply
bafflegabs to give a basis for later claims and arguments.
I also really enjoyed the old 'NXT' patents which largely contradicted a
lot of their PR and showed that their publicity often didn't really explain
what was really happening.
I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance. But may quickly decide
that my technobabble threashold is exceeded too quickly to be be able to
push though the lot! :-)
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> I very briefly skimmed the 37 pages of the patent application.
> It is primarily concerned with the design of the transmitting and
> receiving antennas.
> The first part of the description says:
> BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[snip waffle]
> I very briefly skimmed the 37 pages of the patent application.
> It is primarily concerned with the design of the transmitting and
> receiving antennas.
> The first part of the description says:
> BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
> The whole document seems to be morte like a "blind them with science"
> sales presentation rather than a patent application.
sweeping in language as possible. The idea being to then try and use the
grant of patent as a way to claim as many things as possible.
Hence all the bonkers patents that companies like MicroSoft use to try and
claim they own things like double-click with a mouse on an icon.
The reality is that the USA in particular tend to grant patents and then
leave it to a court to see if it will stand up when contested. IIRC they
ban 'perpetual motion' because they realised that was too open a goal for
the more loony end of patent 'ideas'. But below that they tend to accept
all kinds of blarney. I particularly enjoyed some very long (well over 100
pages) ones by a 'fancy cable' company who tried to patent having the
strands of wire in the cable helixed in particular ways with all kinds of
claims about this improved the sound. 8-]
So a patent can show what is going on. But may also show that it simply
bafflegabs to give a basis for later claims and arguments.
I also really enjoyed the old 'NXT' patents which largely contradicted a
lot of their PR and showed that their publicity often didn't really explain
what was really happening.
I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance. But may quickly decide
that my technobabble threashold is exceeded too quickly to be be able to
push though the lot! :-)
Jim Lesurf
Mar 10, 2012, 7:37:31 AM3/10/12
to
In article <jjfa4p$f0t$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
construction, or protect, or even to help shape the radiation. Or maybe
even to have a plasma around the antenna to alter its radiation behaviour.
> > And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure
> > to generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other
> > ways. Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
> This would, of course, drill the rock, and would be far from a
> non-destructive mechanism!
Not if the plasma is inside the tube(s) as part of the antenna system. Or
if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube material.
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is
> > to simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement
> > yagi or log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length'
> > rather than the physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
> The tube would have to be radio transparent. If you used a conducting
> tube, the beamwidth would still be determined by the ratio of the
> physical aperture to the wavelength.
Yes. I was assuming the tube might be dielectric. Either to aid
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Yes. Various ways. The easiest to explain on a newsgroup about TV is
> > to simply imagine putting a protective tube around a long multielement
> > yagi or log period antenna. Here the gain comes from the 'length'
> > rather than the physical cross-sectional size of the elements.
> The tube would have to be radio transparent. If you used a conducting
> tube, the beamwidth would still be determined by the ratio of the
> physical aperture to the wavelength.
construction, or protect, or even to help shape the radiation. Or maybe
even to have a plasma around the antenna to alter its radiation behaviour.
> > And, yes, you can use a 'laser' driving plasma in a shaped structure
> > to generate RF or control the behaviour of RF generated some other
> > ways. Plasma can be used to modify or create antenna structures.
> This would, of course, drill the rock, and would be far from a
> non-destructive mechanism!
if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube material.
Steve Thackery
Mar 10, 2012, 9:24:20 AM3/10/12
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance.
It would be great if you, or anyone else with sufficient knowledge,
> I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance.
could find the time.
I say that simply because if those claims are believable, then they
really are truly extraordinary and tremendouly exciting.
To be able to shoot a beam into the ground that penetrates 4km, and to
be able to use this magical Atomic Dielectric Resonance to analyse in
detail the materials it passes through... well, it is extraordinary.
Personally I'm deeply sceptical. But, a tiny part of me thinks it is
intriguing enough to warrant a look. Unfortunately I've never read a
patent before, so I've no idea how much is standard boiler plate text,
how much is bullshit, and how much is actual content.
--
SteveT
David Woolley
Mar 10, 2012, 9:51:59 AM3/10/12
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> Not if the plasma is inside the tube(s) as part of the antenna system. Or
> if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube material.
>
Using a metal tube would produce a better effective plasma than a heated
>
> Not if the plasma is inside the tube(s) as part of the antenna system. Or
> if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube material.
>
gas, so a hot plasma would be total over-engineering, and would
contribute a lot of thermal noise on the receive side. The conduction
band electrons in a metal behave like the free electrons in a plasma,
but tend to be at much lower temperature than a hot plasma. In fact, in
a satellite dish, those contributing to the reflection are well below
room temperature, as they couple, thermally, more to the deep space
radiation from the sky than to the bulk of the metal.
I've skimmed the patent. A lot of it is about using it as a contained
system (with the specimen in the chamber). As far as I can see, where a
beam is produced, it is produced only from the end aperture, so beam
forming, even with the dielectric lens proposed, would be limited by the
ratio of that aperture to the wavelength. Also, a lot of the diagrams
show very off axis transmission and reception.
There is some very weird terminology used, anodes and cathodes of the
feed element. These are terms that only make sense in relation to DC.
Whilst I couldn't dig anything truly original on a very quick skim, I'm
not convinced that the antennas are key elements.
Unfortunately patents, particularly ones like this, are difficult to
read, and I don't have the motivation to go into great detail.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 10, 2012, 11:18:51 AM3/10/12
to
In article <jjfpqh$ugg$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
dielectric (e.g. glass) envelopes. However this was work mainly done under
my guidance by a postdoc for a funny part of MoD some years ago. So I have
no idea if it has any relevance to the patent, etc, we are curious about
here. ...And I might have to shoot you if I said too much about the work we
did. 8-]
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > Not if the plasma is inside the tube(s) as part of the antenna system.
> > Or if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube
> > material.
> >
> Using a metal tube would produce a better effective plasma than a heated
> gas, so a hot plasma would be total over-engineering, and would
> contribute a lot of thermal noise on the receive side. The conduction
> band electrons in a metal behave like the free electrons in a plasma,
> but tend to be at much lower temperature than a hot plasma.
FWIW my experience is with generated plasmas around antennas, etc, within
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > Not if the plasma is inside the tube(s) as part of the antenna system.
> > Or if the plasma is laser written onto the surface of the tube
> > material.
> >
> Using a metal tube would produce a better effective plasma than a heated
> gas, so a hot plasma would be total over-engineering, and would
> contribute a lot of thermal noise on the receive side. The conduction
> band electrons in a metal behave like the free electrons in a plasma,
> but tend to be at much lower temperature than a hot plasma.
dielectric (e.g. glass) envelopes. However this was work mainly done under
my guidance by a postdoc for a funny part of MoD some years ago. So I have
no idea if it has any relevance to the patent, etc, we are curious about
here. ...And I might have to shoot you if I said too much about the work we
did. 8-]
Jim Lesurf
Mar 10, 2012, 11:22:03 AM3/10/12
to
In article <KsadnQi5e5OJ-cbS...@bt.com>, Steve Thackery
"extraordinary". However that triggers my feeling "If someone tells you
something that sounds too good to be true.... then it probably *is* too
good to be true." And if the patent is bafflegab it may give no real clue
one way or another.
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance.
> It would be great if you, or anyone else with sufficient knowledge,
> could find the time.
> I say that simply because if those claims are believable, then they
> really are truly extraordinary and tremendouly exciting.
Yes, I can appreciate that. The claims are ones I'd also (neutrally) call
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > I'll have a look at this one when I get a chance.
> It would be great if you, or anyone else with sufficient knowledge,
> could find the time.
> I say that simply because if those claims are believable, then they
> really are truly extraordinary and tremendouly exciting.
"extraordinary". However that triggers my feeling "If someone tells you
something that sounds too good to be true.... then it probably *is* too
good to be true." And if the patent is bafflegab it may give no real clue
one way or another.
Peter Duncanson
Mar 10, 2012, 2:49:22 PM3/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:51:59 +0000, David Woolley
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>There is some very weird terminology used, anodes and cathodes of the
>feed element. These are terms that only make sense in relation to DC.
>
Yes. I had noticed that. I was very slowly getting round to wondering
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>There is some very weird terminology used, anodes and cathodes of the
>feed element. These are terms that only make sense in relation to DC.
>
about considering asking whether that might be jargon in spite of the
apparent inappropriateness.
Andy Champ
Mar 11, 2012, 2:45:13 PM3/11/12
to
On 10/03/2012 09:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where 'geophys'
> use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements use coils along
> the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against the general background.
As a Time Team fan with a limited knowledge of this stuff - AIUI the
> Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where 'geophys'
> use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements use coils along
> the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against the general background.
vertical tube thingies are magnetometers, and the little trolleys that
look like a childs learn-to-walk toy are the GPR. I'd not really
thought about what was in the trolley, but I'd go for a phased array
rather than a dish.
Andy
Andy Wade
Mar 12, 2012, 4:26:45 AM3/12/12
to
On 08/03/2012 01:16, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
> wavelength, [...]
Long compared to light, certainly. Conventional GPR generally uses the
VHF and UHF spectrum that we know and love - according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar, which seems to be
quite a sane article.
--
Andy
> There are ground penetrating radars, my guess is that they are pretty long
> wavelength, [...]
Long compared to light, certainly. Conventional GPR generally uses the
VHF and UHF spectrum that we know and love - according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar, which seems to be
quite a sane article.
--
Andy
Jim Lesurf
Mar 12, 2012, 4:57:49 AM3/12/12
to
In article <5_2dnZ7VnLQqb8HS...@eclipse.net.uk>, Andy
Champ
discrimination antennas. in principle, you can use arrays of coils in ways
that are similar to arrays of electrical dipoles to get such antenna
behaviours. Just that in practice the familiar dipole arrays are more
generally practical once you move up in frequency. So I doubt they'd do
what the 'PR' we've been puzzled by seems to claim.
Champ
<no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 09:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where
> > 'geophys' use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements
> > use coils along the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against
> > the general background.
> As a Time Team fan with a limited knowledge of this stuff - AIUI the
> vertical tube thingies are magnetometers, and the little trolleys that
> look like a childs learn-to-walk toy are the GPR.
Yes. But similar 'tubes' with coils can be used as directional or range
> On 10/03/2012 09:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Again IIUC the systems you see in places like 'Time Team' where
> > 'geophys' use two long vertical tubes to do 'magnetic' measurements
> > use coils along the tubes to get spatial discrimination and against
> > the general background.
> As a Time Team fan with a limited knowledge of this stuff - AIUI the
> vertical tube thingies are magnetometers, and the little trolleys that
> look like a childs learn-to-walk toy are the GPR.
discrimination antennas. in principle, you can use arrays of coils in ways
that are similar to arrays of electrical dipoles to get such antenna
behaviours. Just that in practice the familiar dipole arrays are more
generally practical once you move up in frequency. So I doubt they'd do
what the 'PR' we've been puzzled by seems to claim.
Jim Lesurf
Mar 12, 2012, 5:14:56 AM3/12/12
to
In article <9s5qa5...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Wade
I've not had time to really study the patent we uncovered in real depth. So
the following is just an impression to be taken with caution. I certainly
could be wrong. But having read though it a couple of times fairly quickly
to feel the 'gist', my reaction is that I'd not bet my farm on it providing
the 'deep into the ground' results it claims. (Measurements on samples in a
sample-holder or nearby are a quite different issue.)
The patent has loads of nice plausible-sounding buzzphrases, etc. But I
keep getting the feeling when reading that either the writer doesn't really
understand what he is writing about or that much of it is bafflegab that
clouds what actually happens in practice. I also have the impression that
it barks up the wrong tree in places.
For example, I get the impression that structures inside the 'antennas' are
being said to increase the output, etc, by 'resonance', using tricks like
layered dielectics. But without dealing with all the implications of this.
Not all good implications if you want a really wideband antenna. Nor clear
why having a more efficient antenna, or 'Q switching' to give higher pulse
powers, would improve, say, transverse spatial discrimination at great
depths below lots of assorted lossy and scattering structures.
FWIW I'm familiar with sheathed or 'buried' antennas (buried in various
materials, claddings, etc) and some of the buzz descriptions are familiar.
I'm also familiar with using 'layers' of different dielectrics to do things
like reflect or make resonators or filters, etc. (All from other contexts.)
But I'm left with the old "curate's egg" feeling about the patent, etc. As
per the old joke from Punch:
"I fear that the egg I gave you is bad."
"Oh, no, my Lord. Parts of it are excellent." :-)
Interpret with care. What is said may be fine for all I know. But I'm happy
not to have to spend any of my money finding out!
the following is just an impression to be taken with caution. I certainly
could be wrong. But having read though it a couple of times fairly quickly
to feel the 'gist', my reaction is that I'd not bet my farm on it providing
the 'deep into the ground' results it claims. (Measurements on samples in a
sample-holder or nearby are a quite different issue.)
The patent has loads of nice plausible-sounding buzzphrases, etc. But I
keep getting the feeling when reading that either the writer doesn't really
understand what he is writing about or that much of it is bafflegab that
clouds what actually happens in practice. I also have the impression that
it barks up the wrong tree in places.
For example, I get the impression that structures inside the 'antennas' are
being said to increase the output, etc, by 'resonance', using tricks like
layered dielectics. But without dealing with all the implications of this.
Not all good implications if you want a really wideband antenna. Nor clear
why having a more efficient antenna, or 'Q switching' to give higher pulse
powers, would improve, say, transverse spatial discrimination at great
depths below lots of assorted lossy and scattering structures.
FWIW I'm familiar with sheathed or 'buried' antennas (buried in various
materials, claddings, etc) and some of the buzz descriptions are familiar.
I'm also familiar with using 'layers' of different dielectrics to do things
like reflect or make resonators or filters, etc. (All from other contexts.)
But I'm left with the old "curate's egg" feeling about the patent, etc. As
per the old joke from Punch:
"I fear that the egg I gave you is bad."
"Oh, no, my Lord. Parts of it are excellent." :-)
Interpret with care. What is said may be fine for all I know. But I'm happy
not to have to spend any of my money finding out!
Dave Saville
Mar 12, 2012, 9:19:26 AM3/12/12
to
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:45:13 UTC, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
But Time Team don't try and look N thosand feet down :-) It's all near
surface.
--
Regards
Dave Saville
wrote:
surface.
--
Regards
Dave Saville
sambitb...@gmail.com
Feb 6, 2015, 9:00:59 AM2/6/15
to
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 5:50:36 AM UTC+8, Steve Thackery wrote:
> I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>
> http://adrokgroup.com/
>
> In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>
> Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
> into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
> which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
> technology
>
> It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
> invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
>
> Here is what it says on their website about how it works:
>
> >>
>
> Adrok's technology works by sending a narrow light beam of energy into
> the ground using micro and radio waves. The beam is then reflected back
> by the various rock layers and the energy changed by the materials it
> has passed through on the way.
>
> Reaching great depths, it learns how different substances, including
> hydrocarbons, interact with the light waves passing through them and
> pinpoints their composition. The technology measures dielectric
> permittivity of rock layers in the ground and characterizes the nature
> of the rock types based on spectroscopic analyses of the resonant
> energy response from Adrok's transmitted beams reflected back from the
> ground.
>
> Adrok's scanner illuminates the ground by transmitting and receiving
> invisible lased EM energy.
>
> The beam is:
> Pulsed,
> Coherent (narrow band)
> Focused for minimal dispersion
> Collimated (cylindrical shaped), and contains resonant microwave and
> radiowave frequencies
>
> Adrok's ADR Scanner delivers output measurements based on:
> Dielectric Permittivity
> Resonant behaviours of molecules
> Spectroscopy
> <<
>
> I'm mightily puzzled by this, and somewhat sceptical. It sounds too
> much like mumbo-jumbo to me, although that might just be down to the
> poor copy-writing.
>
> For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
> feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
> ground and generate detectable reflections from the various interfaces
> it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and rock. Can RF
> get through water?
>
> Is this "atomic dielectric resonance" a recognised technique for
> identifying materials? If so, I wonder why it isn't much more widely
> used.
>
> It says it has "low energy use" - certainly low enough to be portable,
> anyway - which makes it even more impressive.
>
> Do you guys think there could be anything in this technology? (To be
> honest, it sounds like at least two technologies: deep-probing
> collimated RF; and identification of materials through the
> characteristics of the reflected energy).
>
> If so, it sounds like it could be remarkable - world changing, even.
>
> All comments gratefully received.
>
> --
> SteveT
Pardon me for digging up this ancient thread.
In Sep 2012, Stove & co. seems to have published a "peer reviewed" article here - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2012.713529#preview
I'm no expert in RF engineering, so my interpretation might be wrong, kindly correct me if it is. But being not a Mr. Ignoramus either (half-way through my physics phd, working on things involving laser spectroscopy and precision time & frequency standards), the stuff described in the paper seems outrightly dubious to me.
He starts off with a line about quantum electrodynamics(QED), but there's nowhere a hint of any sort of QED being applied in the rest of the paper. At some point while describing the methodology, he makes statements like, ".. for deep scanning it is important for the launch speed of the wave to be sufficiently slow to ensure.....".
So, I suppose in addition to having a deeply mysterious design, the antennae can slow down the speed of EM waves emitted, as well. In other words, pure bull****.
The European GPR association has published a criticism of a host of dubious technologies (including ADR) here - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6601507&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6601507
What baffles me now, are the results published in the same paper. It has been claimed that the ADR scanner predicted layers which matched subsequent borehole data. Either this is a blatant lie and the whole paper is a scam, or the laws of physics work differently for Adrok.
--
Sambit
> I've just found this, which looks interesting:
>
> http://adrokgroup.com/
>
> In particular see the Technology and Services page.
>
> Apparently it's a ground penetrating radar which can "see" up to 4km
> into the ground. It can also identify the various materials through
> which the beam travels, providing what they call "virtual borehole"
> technology
>
> It uses a proprietary technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance,
> invented by a guy called Dr Colin Stove.
>
> Here is what it says on their website about how it works:
>
> >>
>
> Adrok's technology works by sending a narrow light beam of energy into
> the ground using micro and radio waves. The beam is then reflected back
> by the various rock layers and the energy changed by the materials it
> has passed through on the way.
>
> Reaching great depths, it learns how different substances, including
> hydrocarbons, interact with the light waves passing through them and
> pinpoints their composition. The technology measures dielectric
> permittivity of rock layers in the ground and characterizes the nature
> of the rock types based on spectroscopic analyses of the resonant
> energy response from Adrok's transmitted beams reflected back from the
> ground.
>
> Adrok's scanner illuminates the ground by transmitting and receiving
> invisible lased EM energy.
>
> The beam is:
> Pulsed,
> Coherent (narrow band)
> Focused for minimal dispersion
> Collimated (cylindrical shaped), and contains resonant microwave and
> radiowave frequencies
>
> Adrok's ADR Scanner delivers output measurements based on:
> Dielectric Permittivity
> Resonant behaviours of molecules
> Spectroscopy
> <<
>
> I'm mightily puzzled by this, and somewhat sceptical. It sounds too
> much like mumbo-jumbo to me, although that might just be down to the
> poor copy-writing.
>
> For instance, is it really possible to collimate a beam of RF? Is it
> feasible that such a beam could penetrate thousands of metres into the
> ground and generate detectable reflections from the various interfaces
> it passes through? Allegedly it works through water and rock. Can RF
> get through water?
>
> Is this "atomic dielectric resonance" a recognised technique for
> identifying materials? If so, I wonder why it isn't much more widely
> used.
>
> It says it has "low energy use" - certainly low enough to be portable,
> anyway - which makes it even more impressive.
>
> Do you guys think there could be anything in this technology? (To be
> honest, it sounds like at least two technologies: deep-probing
> collimated RF; and identification of materials through the
> characteristics of the reflected energy).
>
> If so, it sounds like it could be remarkable - world changing, even.
>
> All comments gratefully received.
>
> --
> SteveT
Pardon me for digging up this ancient thread.
In Sep 2012, Stove & co. seems to have published a "peer reviewed" article here - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2012.713529#preview
I'm no expert in RF engineering, so my interpretation might be wrong, kindly correct me if it is. But being not a Mr. Ignoramus either (half-way through my physics phd, working on things involving laser spectroscopy and precision time & frequency standards), the stuff described in the paper seems outrightly dubious to me.
He starts off with a line about quantum electrodynamics(QED), but there's nowhere a hint of any sort of QED being applied in the rest of the paper. At some point while describing the methodology, he makes statements like, ".. for deep scanning it is important for the launch speed of the wave to be sufficiently slow to ensure.....".
So, I suppose in addition to having a deeply mysterious design, the antennae can slow down the speed of EM waves emitted, as well. In other words, pure bull****.
The European GPR association has published a criticism of a host of dubious technologies (including ADR) here - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6601507&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6601507
What baffles me now, are the results published in the same paper. It has been claimed that the ADR scanner predicted layers which matched subsequent borehole data. Either this is a blatant lie and the whole paper is a scam, or the laws of physics work differently for Adrok.
--
Sambit
Peter Crosland
Feb 6, 2015, 7:40:03 PM2/6/15
to
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Message has been deleted
R. Mark Clayton
Feb 7, 2015, 12:47:30 PM2/7/15
to
What I suspect they are doing is a bit like NMR. Using low frequency high power radio waves they might be able to orientate atomic nuclei and then receive the emissions when the field passes through zero (which is what happens in a body scanner).
The power required to create such a field / wave would be huge.
The description of it as a laser is disingenuous - lasers are collimated light (it is all in phase). Radio transmissions from tuned circuits (from LW to Magentrons) are always in phase.
0 new messages