Reply With Quote
Expert is Expert.
The THz signal is normally created by beating the outputs of two diode lasers phase locked to a reference and then rectifying that signal with a high bandwidth photodiode. The receiving photodiode mixes the signal with the local oscillator to generate an IF in a range where standard electronic components operate.
Expert is Expert.
Must be your troll...
Very true, but the levels are pretty small, and peak at 0.587805 THz. Total enery is 0.000567052 W/m2
I wonder if the best of our equipment could measure such levels? I seriously doubt it. Signal to noise ratios must really suck. Then to try to focus to an image at those levels I say would be impossible with our technology.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-05-2013 at 02:51 PM.
It's a matter of principle, and 4th amendment rights. Some could claim 5th amendment rights, but probably not well.
I can just see it. They start using this system, then send a swat team after a person walking down the street with a conceal carry permit. Are you OK with such a possibility?
This after you stated that I don't contribute anything to the forum outside of nuclear science.
Swing and a miss x2.
This ,on the other hand, is my troll.
No, he's too smart to be you. Fuzzy has to be your troll.This ,on the other hand, is my troll.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-06-2013 at 03:27 AM.
He's not but keep guessing like you always do rather than speak with knowledge. Reading this thread I wonder who is whose troll but one thing that pervades is your typical Google posture. It's one thing to read about a topic and research it when you don't understand it. It's another when you then act like you have any ing clue about what you are talking about.
There is a reason why wikipedia is not a valid reference but that doesn't stop you now does it?
We do this every day it seems: wade through WC Google inspired ignorance and grade school level mathematics. Now talk about assumptions some more. It's got to be a pretty lonely world when everyone else in the world is wrong but you.
What you say is exactly what your posts look like.
In many threads, i have pointed out that wiki is not a good source. Are you really dumb enough to think people already haven't seen my take on that?
Yes, I search at times. But I don't rely on searches to claim it as my knowledge. I use it as a resource. You are the one that will search and find something, then misapply it to an argument, and be too dumb to understand your failing.
All this stupidity you spout, yet you cannot tell us what I have said that is in error, in this or other threads.
Oh now it's "you have never proven me wrong." That goes with:
"The biblical flood was caused by a solar burp and explosions in the thermosphere."
"Flywheels do not store energy."
"There is no such thing as 1F capacitors."
"They don't consider deep ocean currents in their models."
"I have never made racist comments."
"Soot is the biggest contributor to global warming."
"The ocean is like a big soda going flat."
or any other of the thousands of insipid and plain stupid comments that we get from you day after day after day.
Liar, I never said that.
Oh now it's "you have never proven me wrong." That goes with:
"The biblical flood was caused by a solar burp and explosions in the thermosphere."
Liar, I never said that.
Yes, but I owned up to that mistake.
I'm not a car stereo installer like you. I didn't know there were advances to them. In the 70's such a rated capacitor would take up a room.
Not in the material you were quoting at the time.
I see you need to look up the difference between racist and racial.
Not like you make it sound. I was explaining the effect of CO2 in a fluid, so other can understand the solubility changes.
I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand what I am doing.
You found one mistake...
So...
What have I said that is in error in this thread?
In the 70's such a rated capacitor would take up a room.
Have you seen the sizes of capacitors of the time?
OK, make it a small closet. Capacitors were rated in uF at the time, and a 2,200 uF capacitor was huge. Now take 545 of these, and you have several cubit feet.
Good luck searching them, this was 20 years before the internet. Since the internet is the only knowledge you know, I don't expect you to know about old technology.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-06-2013 at 05:14 PM.
Again, what have I said regarding the OP of this thread that is in error?
Can't answer that, can you?
I don't get how you know how much radiation the body emits then you wonder if we can detect it.Very true, but the levels are pretty small, and peak at 0.587805 THz. Total enery is 0.000567052 W/m2
I wonder if the best of our equipment could measure such levels? I seriously doubt it. Signal to noise ratios must really suck. Then to try to focus to an image at those levels I say would be impossible with our technology.
Just because the parts you used were like that does not mean that they have to be that size. Caps for starters are even now are slightly larger than D batteries at around the same order of magnitude. OTOH ceramic capacitors have been around since WW2 and were common in most electronics. When you went to DeVry or wherever in the 1980's LSI tech was in existence and the caps were tiny. You just have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.
Last time we discussed this I tried explaining the mechanics behind it. You didn't understand back then and started babbling about voltage in series from yet another google inspired blather. I am not going to bother wasting my time again.
I still think it's hilarious that you do not understand the properties of the parts you change every day.
As for what's wrong, I don't bother paying attention to your google regurgitation. I use this quote for a reason:
It's the story of your life in one sentence.
I din't know how much the body emits for certain. However, I know thermal imaging works at these temperatures with low emissivity. I did look up for this discussion, what sources say on the human body emissivity. Three places have it listed at 97%, 98%, and 99%. That's higher than I would have expected.
Not knowing if we could detect it with just passive systems is because I didn't know what frequencies they are looking for. As you can see, the power vs. frequency changes dramatically. Because of my experience with thermal imaging, I knew the THZ they were using would be a lower frequency than typical IR, and the power drops more and more as the frequency gets lower and lower.
Now I did find an article that state a bandwidth of frequencies, but I now forget what it was. Still, I missed this in the OP:
This right here tells us it is just a passive system.The technology measures energy radiating from the body up to 16 feet away and can detect anything blocking it.
I missed it in the OP, because I blew off the Prison Planet article. My bad there, but I did verify that was what they were doing.
Humidity is probably the biggest hindrance for these systems. When using a Flir camera to calculate temperature at a distance, you not only have to know the material you are looking at, but the humidity too. Afterall, H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas, and is translucent to these frequencies close up, and becomes opaque farther away.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-07-2013 at 04:05 AM.
LOL...
I'm not going to waste my time explaining just how wrong you are. I'm just going to start to ignore you, and get a good laugh every time you spout your stupidity.
We use so much power with our automation equipment, that we use Thermal Imaging with regular inspections, for making sure we don't have bad connections:
The above is a typical image of a bad connection or contact. If it was unbalanced power loading, the one wire would stay the hotter color through its length. See that too sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracapacitor#History
I pulled a you and Googled this to demonstrate a point. This is about capacitors greater than 1F. Now look at the date of initial discovery, nearly 60 years ago. Now think about what was happening in computing in 1978.Standard Oil did not commercialize their invention, licensing the technology to NEC, who finally marketed the results as “supercapacitors” in 1978, to provide backup power for maintaining computer memory.[7] The market expanded slowly for a time, but starting around the mid-1990s various advances in materials science and refinement of the existing systems led to rapidly improving performance and an equally rapid reduction in cost.
You don't understand the parts you change on a daily basis. They came out commercially with these around the time you were at vocational school. You have been behind the curve from the very beginning.
LOL..
Fuzzy, the web search and google queen, and it still doesn't say the capacity of supercapciters in 1978.
Commercial availability before that... None. Locked down research probably.
LOL...
Fuzzy Wuzzy...
You are so funny...
LOL...
Fuzzy...
While you go Google Crazy, looking to argue your invalid point, ask yourself this. What was the likely percentage of technical advances on capacitor design for this 1978 commercial capacitor over existing design. What was the improvement till another advancement in 1996, and from then till today. Capacitors today likely have around 10,000 times more capacity per volume than before 1978. I will make the guess that in 1978, there was about a 4000% improvement, and again about that in 1996. It's not like these supercapacitors in 1978 are going to be the same as those available today.
One more very important thing to look at in your exhaustive searches in your effort of a false win.
How big (physical volume) would a 1 farad 15 volt capacitor be before 1978, and how big would it be for these computer memory capacitors?
Oh...
How expensive might they be too? I'll bet they were very, very expensive in 1978 for that computer memory backup.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-08-2013 at 03:09 AM.
^Rack!
^You must have a sad existence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
