Friday, 5 November 2010

BUYERS GUIDE TO THE ADE651

For those of you thinking of buying into the scam known as the ADE651, there are some things you must ask yourself, and the salesman.
First, you need to decide which of the following do you fall into.

1)  Are you stupid? This is probably the most important question to ask, because if you actually believe for one nano second that the ADE651 can actually detect explosives or drugs then you really are stupid. Ask the salesman why there is no documented evidence of testing by a credible organisation such as the, James RANDI Educational Foundation? The James RANDI Educational Foundation offered the Director of ATSC, James McCormick (Currently on bail for fraud in the UK) it's One Million Dollar Prize if he could prove that the ADE651 can perform how he claimed. McCormick refused the challenge, now ask yourself this, if McCormick has no faith in the ability of the ADE651 why should you? Remember that over 300 innocent Iraqis have lost their lives in the last 12 months as a direct result of the ADE651 failing to detect the suicide car bomber that subsequently blew them up.

2)   Are you corrupt? If the answer to this question is yes, then the ADE651 is indeed the device for you. The ADE651 will enable you, as it did in Iraq, to fraudulently obtain massive funds from your own government whilst at the same time putting at risk the lives of thousands of your own people. The ADE651 has sold to most corrupt government around the world, however no western government has bought into the scam because of strict budget controls. So basically, you have to live and work in a tinpot country where corruption is an accepted way of life.

Having established which category you fall into, you might be concerned about the fact that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the ADE651 works as claimed, this is an absolute sticking point for the salesman, he may try and fool you with talk of, 'confidential test reports' carried out by honest governments, however these reports, glowing in praise of the ADE651, are not available to you because of 'client confidentiality'. You may have read the rather damning report in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=ade651&st=cse
In that report they drove past several Iraqi checkpoints with several AK47 automatic rifles in their vehicle, but to the amazement of no one here, they were not detected. You could ask the salesman about this.

You may have seen a programme broadcast by the BBC Newsnight team, whereby they opened one of the, 'special programmed detector cards' as they are called by McCormick, that are used to detect the various type of explosives that are in use around the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm
In that report they were found to contain nothing but electronic anti shoplifting tags, that cannot be programmed to detect anything, let alone explosives or drugs. In fact the only difference between the cards is the writing on the cards that tell you the different substances they are supposed to detect. You should definately ask the salesman about that.

You may also be aware of the now famous Million Dollar challenge previously mention, by James RANDI:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/231-a-direct-specific-challenge-from-james-randi-and-the-jref.html
In the challenge, which McCormick refused to take, RANDI said the following about the remarkable ADE651;
"No one will respond to this, because the ADE651® is a useless, quack, device which cannot perform any other function than separating naïve persons from their money. It’s a fake, a scam, a swindle, and a blatant fraud. The manufacturers, distributors, vendors, advertisers, and retailers of the ADE651® device are criminals, liars, and thieves who will ignore this challenge because they know the device, the theory, the described principles of operation, and the technical descriptions given, are nonsense, lies, and fraudulent."
You really need to ask the salesman why McCormick ran away from this simple test of the ADE651 ability?
Or, if how RANDI describes the ADE651 and the people involved is not true, why has McCormick not taken legal action against RANDI?

You may be concerned that the UK Government has banned the export of the ADE651 to Iraq and Afghanistan, calling the ADE651, "NOT SUITABLE FOR BOMB DETECTION", You may ask the salesman if McCormick is not going to sue RANDI for his comments then surely he will betaking legal action against the UK Government, if not why not?
I will give you the answer as to why McCormick will not sue any of the above because he will have to prove his ADE651 actually works and that is impossible.

You may be concerned that the alleged inventor of the ADE651, the aforementioned James McCormick has been arrested and is currently on bail for fraud regarding the ADE651.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/head-of-bomb-detector-company-arrested-in-fraud-investigation-1876388.html
At time of writing he is still on bail and has not been charged. You may wish to ask the salesman why he did not mention this fact in his sales pitch?

You may have read that the ADE651 works on a principle they call Electro Magnetic Attraction, then without warning or explanation it suddenly changed to, Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance, then just as suddenly it changed back to, Electro Magnetic Attraction. If that doesn't confuse you, on the website of ATSC's approved distributor, Prosec in Lebanon the working principle was described as, Thermo Redox. You should without fail ask the salesman what changes they made to the ADE651 to accomodate the changes in the working principle.


Perhaps you have taken the trouble to read the FAQ regarding the ADE651 on ATSC's website. Read below for a total destruction of all their nonsense with full credit to, Matt on the UK skeps site;

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php/3086-Detect-the-ADE-651-Detection-Equipment/page21

Destruction of ATSC lies

Q: How does the ADE work?



A: The ADE works on the principal(sic) we call Electro-Magnetic Attraction, EMA. The principle for long range detection is based on substance excitation that needs to be detected, with an electromagnetic field that propagates on a long distance and is not disturbed by the " electromagnetic noise" from the environment generated by such things like RF transmitters and other electronic equipments that use electric current or electromagnetic waves.

“This effect appears to be unknown science. If it were real then a patent would be in order.”



Explosives and drug substances contain in their structure the Nitrogen atom.

“Many explosives do indeed contain nitrogen. But then again so does the air we breathe. THC, the active ingredient in Cannabis contains no nitrogen. The presence of THC is the only difference between marijuana and hemp.”

The positive charge of the Nitrogen Core is not uniformly distributed on the surface of the core ( nucleus ) and this determines that every chemical component that has the Nitrogen in composition to be in an instable equilibrium. At card-excitation,

This is techno babble.

With a low-level intensity wave modulated with a frequency equal

How does the card emit a wave with no power source? It must be very low level indeed.

How does the card emit a wave with no active components?

To the resonance frequency of the compound that has the Nitrogen atom, the substance changes its energetic level to a superior / inferior energetic level with a frequency equal to the resonance frequency of the compound that has the Nitrogen atom. Why the resonance frequency of the compound that has the Nitrogen atom, the substance changes its energetic level to a superior / inferior energetic level with a frequency equal to the resonance frequency of the compound that has the Nitrogen atom. As a result an electromagnetic field is generated with the propagation direction of the excitation field. This creates an electromagnetic field that is working on the devices antenna.

More techno babble.

Lab measurements on each type of substance, provides the "electromagnetic signature " for each type of substance with a specific resonating frequency and signal pattern.

Which again don't seem to have been patented? How is the pattern data stored in a card with no components?

All substances have an Electro-Magnetic Signature that carries an electromagnetic charge that, when stimulated by an electromagnetic impulse creates an 'attraction' between the substance being detected and the unit itself.

Techno babble.

The simple way to explain this technology is to take an inflated balloon and rub it on your hair. A static electric 'charge' is created, making the balloon 'attract' it to say, a wall or other flat surface. Provided there is enough 'charge', the balloon will remain 'attracted' to the wall for an indefinite amount of time. However, once the 'charge' has dissipated, the balloon will then 'unattached' itself and fall to the ground.

I understand tribo electricity and electrostatic attraction. However this seems to have no bearing on the techno babble being raised apart from raising the issue of distance. A balloon (which has much more inertia than an antenna) will show no discernible attraction to the wall if separated by more than a millimetre or so. This is common to electrostatic and electrodynamic attractions.

What the ADE does is create an 'attraction' between itself and the substance it wants to detect. With, (the substance recognition cards), the movement of an operator, an attracting field is created in the card reader that, in turn, causes the Direction Indicator of the ADE, (the antenna) to "lock onto" a signal, indicating the direction in which the substance can be located.

Why is operator movement mentioned? The ideomotor effect requires a human holding the dowsing rods but none of the electrodynamic techno babble has explained why the device can't be mounted.

When the electromagnetic signal of the substance that the ADE is searching for is located within its detection range, the ADE's receiving direction indicator, (the antenna), will move towards the direction of the existing substance.

Where does the power come from for the movement? Such movement requires energy.

Essentially the ADE functions like a hyper sensitive receiver. ATSC has incorporated EMA technology into its proprietary Substance Recognition Cards

No it hasn't, they've been taken apart and there's nothing in them except an electronic anti shoplifting tag that certainly cannot be programmed.

to specifically target either a specific substance, or group, or family of substances. For example, particularly in the case of Explosives, the Substance Recognition Card for "Plastic" can detect the family of Plastic Explosives including C4, C3, Semtex, etc.

Not in a double blind test it can't. As has been proven time and again.

The ADE is able to penetrate all known substances which may be used to "camouflage " the target substance because it will "lock" onto the programmed target substance only and will "bypass" any substance(s) that may be in between the target substance and the programmed ADE card.

Electromagnetic signals do no pass into or out of faraday cages. This claim is inconsistent with the claim to utilise an electromagnetic effect. Another example could be home-made explosives such as Ammonium Nitrate whereby the ADE could not distinguish the difference between this (as an explosive) and the same as used in farm fertiliser. Or, as far as the explanation given thus far, any other nitrogen containing compound, like the major constituent of air.

In essence, the ADE functions like a hyper sensitive receiver. As the ADE receives an attraction signal from the target substance, its Indicator moves across the Operators' body to form a 90 degree angle toward the direction of the substance.

Except in double blind tests.

Q: Is there anything that will stop or block the ADE from detecting substances?


A: To date, we have not found anything that will totally block or stop the substance signal being detected. As with any equipment, there are limitations as to its use and during training, the ADE provides some guidelines for its use. Provided these guidelines, (together with your operators training), are followed, you will have an effective tool enabling you to effectively & efficiently 'narrow' down the area of search allowing other search methods to be deployed in the successful detection of the searched substance. Used correctly, the ADE can detect substance(s) through walls, (even lead-lined and metal ones), water, (fresh and salted), fresh & frozen foods, (fish, fruit, tea, coffee, ice), vacuum flasks, containers, petrol & diesel fuel and even buried in earth (underground).

Which since all low power electromagnetic signals are blocked by faraday cages (like a fuel tank of vacuum flask) means the technological claims being made are inconsistent with this claim.

Q: Does the ADE emit any harmful rays or hazardous emissions?


A: No. There are no harmful rays or emissions from the ADE. The electromagnetic waves which work with ADE are very low intensity and low frequency. This, therefore, would be no different than operating say, a 2-way radio.

Low frequency means long wavelength. Nitrogen nuclei are small. Do you see the problem here? Also low frequency means low data capacity. How can a signature that is data rich enough to distinguish between all the different nitrogen compounds be carried on a low frequency wave?

Q: What is the maximum distance that the ADE can detect?


A: The name ADE was devised by taking the full name of the product, (Advanced Detection Equipment), with its initial 'test' distance, which was 650 meters. Hence, ADE650! However the best operational distance for detection in a optimum time is between 10-100m.

An elecrodynamic attraction strong enough to overcome the inertia of an antenna over a distance of 650m would be unfeasibly high powered.

Q: How can the ADE operate without any external power source?


A: Electrostatic electricity is very much misunderstood. The ADE does require power in order to operate. It requires a very high level of electric current but without amperage.

Amperage and current are exactly the same thing.

This is why it cannot currently be mounted in a stationary position to operate. The production of power is generated by the movement of the Operator and, as the Operator walks the perimeter of the defined search area, he (or she) generates electrostatic electricity.

Not usually. Does the operator have to moonwalk in rubber shoes? Will it only work where there are nylon carpets? Why choose such an unreliable power source? Does the device switch off if the operator isn't active enough, or if humidity is high? Wouldn't a battery be a better idea?

As one moves, you generate power which, at times, can be in excess of 2,000-3,000 or more Volts.

Power is measured in watts. The Voltage of the human skin with respect to earth is rarely that high. To draw power from it you must earth it or otherwise connect to a something of a different potential.

This in turn, powers the ADE.

This can't happen since the ADE is not earthed.

The ADE becomes active and starts to receive signals from the electromagnetic c signature code of the targeted substance.

Even if the ADE were earthed there's so little power generated through tribo electricity that even if the device were to convert all the available power to some sort of signal that would excite a nitrogen nucleous it would be a very weak signal. That signal power would be reduced with the cube of the distance between the device and the target substance. Even if the target substance converted all of the signal energy it received back into a return signal there wouldn't be enough power to move the antenna.
Let’s say we're trying to detect a hand grenade distance. Let’s be generous and say 10m.
Connect a bicycle to a electrical generator and a seasoned athlete can produce 300W for a short time. Obviously the amount of power generated by the inadvertent build up of static electricity is many orders of magnitude less but I'm being exceptionally generous.
Let’s say that all this power was converted to some electromagnetic signal. Nothing is that efficient but again I'm being generous. How much power would fall on the grenade?
Well the 300W would be spread out over the surface of a sphere 10m wide that's 1250 m2
The cross section of a grenade is around 0.005 square metres. So the grenade gets impacted with 1.2 milliwatts of power assuming no attenuation of the signal (which is generous to the max considering it's passing through 80% nitrogen, the very stuff it's supposed to interact with.
Lets be exceptionally generous again and say that this power is not radiated back out to the antenna with only some small fraction hitting the cross section but that all of it goes straight back to the antenna.
What we then have is a 1.2 milliwatt motor trying to move a 50cm long metal antenna. How quickly will the antenna move? It's not.
And remember that's being extremely generous. At 100m ten times the distance we're trying to move the antenna with a microwatt. Pick a real estimate for the amount of power produced by build up of static rather than the batshit insane overestimate of the maximum power a human can produce in ideal circumstance and we're in nanowatt territory.
Forget detecting explosives and drugs, if this works as stated it breaks the laws of thermodynamics and you've discovered free energy. You're putting in a milliwatt of power and getting a long metal arm to swing. Stick it between some drugs and a live shell the switch the cards back and for. Fix that antenna to a generator and you'll get out more than a milliwatt. With that sort of discovery you could put an end to war, with free energy everyone has all they need and there's no need to go to war over oil any more.
But that brings us back to the beginning. It doesn't work. And that's the main problem with the technology. It fails in the same way that the ideomotor effect fails. Which makes the people selling an promoting it responsible for all the death's associated with its use.

1 comment:

Pär Larsson said...

http://www.slate.com/id/2274797/

"Divining rods" still being used in Iraq. Journalists from Washington Post don't even know how fraudulent they are, even after the recent exposure of fraud by Mr. Ernesto Londono, working for the same publication!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110203290.html