The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?  (Read 16744 times)

Offline steelrat1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
HEDD1 Explosive detector real or a dangerous fake?
« Reply #25 on: 15/06/2011 16:27:12 »
it sounds like it is the same product,under diffrent management

see link  to Unival group - David Vollmar  an expert in blast protection, any one fancy asking him a question? on the link..
http://www.armedforces-int.com/askexpert/ [nofollow]           (under electronic Warfare)

Armed Forces International its a military suppliers directory offering the latest military news, contracts and tender, information

anyway
it amazes me how theses people can get away with it.. and unfortunatly lots of Pen pushers behind their .Gov Desks dont know enough about science and tech to dismiss this rubbish but just see a cheap price tag !
« Last Edit: 15/06/2011 16:36:09 by steelrat1 »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
HEDD1 Explosive detector real or a dangerous fake?
« Reply #26 on: 15/06/2011 16:47:05 »
This sort of thing gets me so riled - per one of the posters in other thread; put that scumbag in his baseball cap in the middle of mine field, if he gets out then we might start to take him seriously.  If one person dies because of a misguided confidence in these snakeoil devices I hope they find some way of prosecuting the directors!
 

Offline SeanB

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #27 on: 15/06/2011 21:39:06 »
I can provide that minefield, and the nice thing is that it will be a real test for him. Angola and Mozambique are near to me, and both have large no go areas with mines in them. We will have to give him water though, and a GPS so he can walk for the 2 days to the nearest town.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #28 on: 08/07/2011 01:03:54 »
Wake up folks, this is how the arms industry works.  It's not about ethics or morality, it's all about the money.
Wholesale death makes a lot of money especially if you supply the guns, bullets, and bullet proof vests to both sides.  The trick is not to make it obvious or the general public will begin to cotton on!! 

Time for a change?  Stop making things that kill people! I've said it before and I will say it again as sometimes repetition seems to sink in a bit more, STOP MAKING THINGS THAT KILL PEOPLE!

Make other things, solar panels, wind generators, space ships, better medicines, anything else, cor blimy!!
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #29 on: 08/07/2011 10:01:03 »
AirT - I would be delighted if this was how the arms industry worked.  If you had read the thread you would have realised that this detector is a complete fraud and had no chance of ever working.  Arms based on mystical and mythical forces would be a distinct improvement over the sort that kill people.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #30 on: 08/07/2011 14:50:03 »
AirT - I would be delighted if this was how the arms industry worked.  If you had read the thread you would have realised that this detector is a complete fraud and had no chance of ever working.  Arms based on mystical and mythical forces would be a distinct improvement over the sort that kill people.

I agree totally Imatfall, I missed the fact that it does not work!!
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #31 on: 09/07/2011 00:13:38 »
Wake up folks, this is how the arms industry works.  It's not about ethics or morality, it's all about the money.

Well, unfortunately it ISN'T everything that is working.

How many M-16's did the USA send to Vietnam with so bad of problems with jamming that some soldiers chose to use captured AK-47's?  It would seem to me that if guns were the "answer", then choosing guns that actually worked would be a priority.

Out of 8 helicopters sent for a single mission under President Carter, four or five of them failed before the mission was scuttled without the enemy firing a single shot (partly due to equipment failures, partly due to poor planning and execution).

And, whoever had the bright idea of covering troop transports with canvas while making bullet proof limos for the country's leaders?

There continue to be reports of vastly over-priced items sold to the government and military.  Some may be valid due to low volume, or certain specs, but often the government is just getting fleeced. 
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #32 on: 09/07/2011 00:22:53 »
Do weapon detectors that work actually exist?  The technology is there, the electronic noses, electromagnetic sensors. 

I suppose the point is, it would be good if you do find yourself in a life/death situation, too have something that actually works, would be more then ideal!
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #33 on: 09/07/2011 01:40:21 »
Do weapon detectors that work actually exist?  The technology is there, the electronic noses, electromagnetic sensors. 

Yes,
They've been using them for decades in our airports.

Yet, none of them are handheld (well, except for those wands at airports), and the old basic stand-by, the "pat-down".  And don't forget our furry friends.

Miniaturization technology will come.

I would just rather not trust my security to a Ouija board.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #34 on: 09/07/2011 06:05:25 »
Speaking of AK47's you should watch this very short clip.  It is fake but I find each time I watch it the moment the chimp lets some rounds off has me in stitches...
feature=topvideos_film

Thanks for the info on the weapon detectors that do work!  Maybe they should use them to detect weapons after they stop making them....  ;D
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
A weapon detector; how do companies get away with selling this?
« Reply #35 on: 10/07/2011 10:27:39 »
Whatever one's views on the arms industry, the sales of these "magic" detectors that end up putting people's lives at risk should not be condoned by anybody with an ounce of morality. However, it is part of the free market economy that anyone can sell anything they like and "let the buyer beware". I am not wholly sure where the law stands on this.

To go back to the arms industry in general, I don't think the huge overpricing and any lack of functionality is quite in the same league of deliberate deception and dishonesty as the above "bomb (and anything) detector", but the commonality is in the naivety and depth of the pockets of the potential buyers. This exploitation is condoned by successive governments in some countries (the USA, UK, France and many others) because it is a source of significant revenue. If the issue of the actual non-working of the detector had not been revealed it would not have surprised me if the company had managed to get a "Queen's Award for Exports".

Of course exploitative arms sales are not just limited to exports but are also pursued domestically. These are also condoned by governments and the respective armed services who, basically, are just not set up to get a good deal. The armed forces always want "the best" in terms of performance and assured quality and no politician is ever going to put himself in a position to be seen to argue to the contrary. The whole chain of supply then is geared to quality and life testing, that is mostly unnecessary, but enables the price of products to be elevated by factors of 5x, 10x or 20x. This is right down to every semiconductor component, nut and bolt. As more complicated components are built up these factors are effectively further multiplied up. This is without any alleged bribery and corruption and any subsequent employment by arms companies of retired politicians. I would bet that China could produce competing equipment less than 1/10th of the price. However the "free market economy" does not stretch that far yet.

As Clifford mentioned, some of the sophisticated stuff doesn't work well either. The AK47 is successful because it is dirt cheap to make, can be simply understood and disassembled and reassembled in minutes by anyone with a few minutes training, and is reliable and repairable. The major arms manufacturers must hate it.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2011 10:29:33 by graham.d »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8128
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Mr McCormick [of "ADE 651" fame ] is currently in on trial ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-businessman-sold-golf-ball-1750300
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Is there any reprimand for the person that signed the $40 Million (26 Million) purchase order?  Who tested the device for efficacy?

In fact this was posted on TNS in 2009...  Why does the complaint claim that the devices were sold to the British and Iraqi military between 2008 and 2010 (one assumes inclusive).

Although, if Mr. McCormick's device lead to the death of anybody, he should be charged with homicide (pre-meditated?  negligent homicide?)  Without a doubt, there will be lawsuits following this decision.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2013 18:19:25 by CliffordK »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Got him at last! He still claims it works apparantly. It does beg the question that if he continues to claim it works, does he really have to prove it? It could be said that if he actually believes it works that he was not engaging in deliberate deception in selling it. How does the law stand on this? There are plenty of companies who make unrealistic claims for their products that could be said to be a matter of opinion.

Whatever the case, he hopefully can't continue selling this product.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
It should be easy enough to have him prove the effectiveness of the device in a double blinded experiment, where the experiment is set up, but neither he, nor anybody present at the test knows the true location of the explosives. 

One could, of course, set up the experiment where his life would be on the line.  He would have to correctly identify 5 IUDS, and pick up 5 tokens from locations in the test without bombs.  Correctly completing the task and he survives.  A mistake, and he blows himself up.

There may be an effect that some operators who believed in the device would have heightened awareness of various environmental cues.  But, of course, it isn't the device detecting the explosives, but rather the people detecting it.  And there is always a risk of both false positives and false negatives.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
In fact this was posted on TNS in 2009...  Why does the complaint claim that the devices were sold to the British and Iraqi military between 2008 and 2010 (one assumes inclusive).

Although, if Mr. McCormick's device lead to the death of anybody, he should be charged with homicide (pre-meditated?  negligent homicide?)  Without a doubt, there will be lawsuits following this decision.
These devices and ones like them have been sold to police and military around the world - Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. They make huge profits (cost a few dollars to make and sell for tens of thousands) and everyone down the line gets a cut. I heard one high ranking military officer (in Pakistan?) is awaiting trial for corruption over this.

The poor grunts at the sharp end, at control points in places like Iraq, apparently continued to use them despite lacking confidence in them because it meant they didn't have to get up close and actually search vehicles by hand, which could be extremely dangerous for them. They were effectively passing on the danger to the areas they're supposed to be protecting. There seems little doubt that many bombs have got past the control points and have claimed lives because of the reliance on these 'devices'. It's quite likely that Western forces have been caught up in these events.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
It works on the placebo effect: If you think it's a bomb detector, you won't take your bomb there....

And if you think it might find you, you might look extra tense, and an observant operator will look more closely at you, causing you to get even more tense...
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
It works on the placebo effect: If you think it's a bomb detector, you won't take your bomb there....
And if you think it might find you, you might look extra tense, and an observant operator will look more closely at you, causing you to get even more tense...

Except, if one looks it up on the internet and learns that it is 100% bogus.
Then one can be relaxed and just drive through the checkpoint.

Good criminals will try to learn all they can about technology they must evade.

Of course, then it may end up being a "random search" policy, but then the terrorists that are caught would just blow themselves up early.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Clifford, I think you missed my point. I know it would be easy to prove the efficacy of such a device (or lack of it) scientifically but I just wondered where the law stands on whether he is committing a crime by selling something like this unless it can be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that he knew it did not work and was committing an act of deception. There are plenty of "snake oil" salesmen (and companies) out there, where the consequences of their deception is, admittedly, not so great, but where nothing is done to prevent them promoting their wares and accepting the idea of Caveat Emptor.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I think he can be done for fraud if he claims that it does something that it does not do. It is his responsibility to ensure the product performs according to the claims he makes for it.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Yes, you may be right. I am just thinking of people who sell lucky charms or magic crystals or, when it comes to it, a lot of products that are advertised on the media. How can people claim that their washing powder washes whiter that other powders or their brand of toothpaste, shampoo, baldness cure etc. are in someway superior to others (or in the case of baldness cure, work at all). Maybe it is down to exactly how they word their ads.

In this case I hope the bloke gets a significant time in prison and has his ill-gotten wealth confiscated (though I doubt this will happen).
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
First of all, the government was scammed, not individuals, although as I've mentioned a few times, I believe the government should have done their independent tests before investing millions of dollars or pounds in a wonder-device.

In many cases, companies are forced to add a disclaimer. 
WONDER SHOCK TREATMENT,
not for medical use.

In this case, I consider the device as a critical safety device. 
If an airbag doesn't function properly, a company would be forced to recall it and replace it with a functioning device.  However, in this case, the technology doesn't exist to make these devices function properly, at least not without making a CT scanner or fluoroscope the size of a tunnel.  Perhaps he should be forced to replace every handheld device with a fully functional CT scanners and  fluoroscopes.

No doubt the company would declare bankruptcy before doing a recall.

It isn't clear how many deaths and injuries were caused by his device.  (Were any saved by the device?)

Now, one might say that these devices were in fact extremely effective as a deterrents.  Kind of like putting in a dummy camera system that doesn't monitor a store, but would-be thieves would think twice before committing a crime, not that it prevents all crimes, as cameras, of course, only monitor crimes.

One could possibly approach a military official, and rather than telling him that it is a "bomb detector", readily admit.  "I have a dummy bomb detector that I think would work as a deterrent for use in your low risk checkpoints".  Then sell it for a "reasonable price".  If one told the soldiers, eventually the secret would get out to the enemy.  Nonetheless, being a dummy detector, it should not replace other methods of searching at the checkpoints.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Now, one might say that these devices were in fact extremely effective as a deterrents.  Kind of like putting in a dummy camera system that doesn't monitor a store, but would-be thieves would think twice before committing a crime, not that it prevents all crimes, as cameras, of course, only monitor crimes.
Except that the bombers would know it was useless the first time they tried to smuggle a bomb past it. Which they have done. Many times.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Well, certainly the insurgents would likely try to learn as much as they could about such a device.  Perhaps even try to steal one.  And, so it is only effective until everyone knows it is a joke. 

Of course, many bombers blow themselves up, so they may not report their findings back to their buddies.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums