5 ms·
From my understanding, the new CT machines are able to characterise material composition using dual-energy X-ray, and this is how they were able to relax the ru
by scq 8mo ago
From my understanding, the new CT machines are able to characterise material composition using dual-energy X-ray, and this is how they were able to relax the rules.
- jandrewrogers 8mo agoI am not up-to-date on the bleeding edge but that explanation doesn’t seem correct? The use of x-rays in analytical chemistry is for elemental analysis, not molecular analysis. (There are uses for x-rays in crystallography that but that is unrelated to this application.) At an elemental level, the materials of a suitcase are more or less identical to an explosive. You won’t easily be able to tell them apart with an x-ray. This is analogous to why x-ray assays of mining ores can’t tell you what the mineral is, only the elements that are in the minerals. FWIW, I once went through an airport in my travels that took an infrared spectra of everyone’s water! They never said that, I recognized the equipment. I forget where, I was just impressed that the process was scientifically rigorous. That would immediately identify anything weird that was passed off as water.
- wyldfire 8mo agoHere's an article that talks about Dual-energy CT [1]. And another one talking about material discrimination using DECT [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_imaging_(radiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_imaging_(radiography) [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719491/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719491/
- jandrewrogers 8mo agoNeither of those articles seem to support the idea that you can do molecular analysis with x-rays. They are all about elemental analysis, which is not useful for the purpose of detecting explosives.
- littlecranky67 8mo agoNot sure if they use dual-energy x-ray as in [0], but you don't need to if you take x-ray shot from different angles. Modern 3D reconstruction algorithms you can detect shape and volume of an object and estimate the material density through its absorption rate. A 100ml liquid explosive in a container will be distinguishable from water (or pepsi) by material density, which can be estimate from volume and absorption rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-energy_X-ray_absorptiometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-energy_X-ray_absorptiomet...
- codethief 8mo agoSee also beepblap's comments further below where they elaborate on this a bit (it's not just simple dual-energy xray apparently).
- don_esteban 8mo agoHm, isn't it enough to just detect water and flag everything else as suspicious? If your liquid is 80%+ water (that covers all juices and soft drinks), it is not going to be an explosive, too much thermal ballast.
- palata 8mo ago> FWIW, I once went through an airport in my travels that took an infrared spectra of everyone’s water! They never said that, I recognized the equipment. I forget where, I was just impressed that the process was scientifically rigorous. That would immediately identify anything weird that was passed off as water. Something like 10 years ago, I had my water checked in a specialised "bottle of water checker" equipment in Japan. I had to put my bottle there, it took a second and that was it. I have been wondering why this isn't more common ever since :-). No idea if it was an "infrared spectra machine" of course.
- regularfry 8mo agoCynically, it's so they can sell you another bottle on the secure side. If they spend money to give themselves a working mechanism to distinguish water from not-water, they lose the ability to create retail demand.
- palata 8mo agoI understand the idea, but it's not completely true: I empty my bottle before the security check, and fill it after in a fountain.
- regularfry 8mo agoThen you have successfully circumnavigated a problem that more forgetful people will run into head-first. It doesn't have to catch everyone for the shops who are tenants on the secure side to complain about lost sales.
- marcosdumay 8mo agoThere's still no evidence that peroxide-based explosives are stable enough to be practical. And nobody every explained why the few liquid ones are so dangerous, but the solid ones get a pass when they are more stable. It's a good thing that airport brought some machinery to apply the rule in a sane way. But it's still an insane rule, and if it wasn't the US insisting on it, the entire world would just laugh it off.
- dbbk 8mo agoYes. The first step was upgrading to the new machines, now the size limits can be relaxed.