Reply With QuoteI couldn’t find any comment regarding ADE on the text from their site http://www.ade651.co.uk/ade-651-about.html ... Do you have any argument regarding the used technology?
Ernst, is it only me who suspects you could be more than one person? Have I detected a difference in your command of written English across different posts?Originally Posted by ernst.filibert
Oh well. Doesn't really matter. How's this for an insult?
You are a complete f'ing t**t unless you return and tell us what independently run, correctly controlled tests have shown any of the scam devices to work?
OR, Tell us why you think none of the people behind these scam devices will agree to proper independent testing?
OR, Tell us why you do not think they need to have such tests carried out?
Of course, you could also try to explain why Jim McCormick claimed that double blind testing would not work on these devices? That one has made me laugh (funny peculiar, not ha ha) ever since he spouted it.
So you see, you are only insulted here when you are unable to participate in a sensible, rational discussion, as opposed to your tactic of simply saying they do work and everyone involved are really well meaning, jolly nice, genuine types.
If you really have gone away (and that just tells us what we know already i.e. you have nothing to contribute) then I for one am happy you won't be polluting our forum with your nonsense any more. BUT, secretly I bet you are watching. EVIDENCE OR SILENCE!
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
I couldn’t find any comment regarding ADE on the text from their site http://www.ade651.co.uk/ade-651-about.html ... Do you have any argument regarding the used technology?
The claimed technology [this week] is 'long range electromagnetic attraction', but no details are gone into, possibly because that claim is bollocks.
The used technology appears to be 'Sweet Fanny Adams', since people who have looked inside them don't report them as having anything inside conceivably useful.
Though I did hear a rumour there was going to be a new model, using some cutting edge electromagnetic technology called a 'Snay coil'
So you lied (again) when you said you were out of here.
Still trying to promote the discredited fraud ADE 651?
What technology?
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Ernst, You plonker!!! All you have to do is do your research like we and others have done.
Fact is if you check out the various blogs on the topic you will find that Jim has claimed various different working principles behind the ADE651. Even at one time having contradictory principles on his Lebanese agents website and his own ramblings.
I will not detail here the various guises under which McCormick of ATSC has tryed to masquerade the ADE651,. Look up the history yourself.
Oh yesh. Answer the fing questions about testing before you raise any more non-poits or issues.
Ernst, let me assure you, the cmpaign against your friend/s continues. There is some interesting new information emerging on some of the protagonists. Funny that both Jim McCormick (Romania) and Gary Bolton of Global Technical (the GT200 scam( both went to ground once the Police started taking real interest.
Anyway, Ernie baby, as my learned friends have pointed out, you continue to demonstrate extreme stupidity, and contribute absolutely nothing useful!
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
The used technology is zero, zilch, thin air technology. Can you clarify which technology is being claimed this week?
Is it still EMA or is it back to NQR, it changes so often we cannot keep up?
Also can you tell us what changes were made to the ADE to incorporate the different technologies that were claimed?
We've done a double-blind test where the equipment was only successful in discovering in 20 percent of the cases, when just a random choice would give you 25 percent -- so there's no statistical significance to having the equipment," Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told CNN
Yes, it doesn't work under double blind testing.
That alone should be enough.
But...
This effect appears to be unknown science. If it were real then a patent would be in order.Q: How does the ADE work?
A: The ADE works on the principal 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.
Many explosives do indeed contain nitrogen. But then again so does the air we breathe. THC, the active ingredient in Canabis contains no nitrogen. The presence of THC is the only difference between marijuana and hemp.Explosive and drug substances contain in their structure the Nitrogen atom.
This is technobabble.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,
How does the card emit a wave with no power source? It must be very low level indeed.with a low-level intensity wave modulated with a frequency equal
How does the card emit a wave with no active components?
Why would this technobabble "freqency" be different for a nitrogen atom in for example C4 compared to the tonnes of nitrogen atoms in the air, in proteinsto 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.
More technobabble.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.
Which again don't seem to have been patented. How is the pattern data stored in a card with no components?Lab measurements on each type of substance, provides the "electromagnetic signature " for each type of substance with a specific resonating frequency and signal pattern.
TechnobableAll 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.
I understand tribo electricity and electrostatic attraction. However this seems to have no bearing on the technobabble 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.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.
why is operator movement mentioned? The ideomotor effect requires a human holding the dowsing rods but none of the electrodynamic technobabble has explained why the device can't be mounted.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.
Where does the power come from for the movement? Such movement requires energy.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.
No it hasn't, they've been taken apart and there's nothing in themEssentially, the ADE functions like a hyper sensitive receiver. ATSC has incorporated EMA technology into its proprietary Substance Recognition Cards
Not in a double blind test it can't. As has been proven time and again.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.
Electromagnetic signals do no pass into or out of faraday cages. This claim is inconsistent with the claim to utilise an electromagnetic effect.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.
Or, as far as the explanation given thus far, any other nitrogen containing compound, like the major constituent of air.Nother example could be home-made explosives such as Ammonium Nitrate whereby the ADE could not distringuish the difference between this (as an explosive) and the same as used in farm fertiliser.
Except in double blind tests.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.
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: 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)
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: 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.
An elecrodynamic attraction strong enough to overcome the inertia of an antenna over a distance of 650m would be unfeasibly high powered.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.
Amerage and current are exactly the same thing.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.
Not usually. Does the operator have to moonwalk in rubber shoes? Will it only work where there's 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?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.
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.As one moves, you generate power which, at times, can be in excess of 2,000-3,000 or more Volts.
This can't happen since the ADE is not earthed.This in turn, powers the ADE.
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.The ADE becomes active and starts to receive signals from the electromagnetic c signature code of the targeted substance.
Lets say we're trying to detect a hand grenade distance. Lets 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.
Lets 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 our 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 then 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 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 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 it's use.
Last edited by Matt; 3rd November 2010 at 01:30 AM.
Matt, excellent destruction of the nonsense posted on the ADE website.
One bit I picked up on was the following.
Q: What is the possibility of obtaining "false Positives" with the ADE?
A: False Positives are problems in all known detection equipment in service today. A "manageable" amount of these False Positives are generally incorporated into the continuing operation of detection equipment and can range from <1% to as high as 20% or more.
So 20% or more that covers them for the usual 100% failure as it is within their specification!
We've done a double-blind test where the equipment was only successful in discovering in 20 percent of the cases, when just a random choice would give you 25 percent -- so there's no statistical significance to having the equipment," Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told CNN
Some people just do not learn. This appears to be another one in your back yard.
http://www.sae-ltd.com/xk9_explosive_detector.htm
X-K9 with a swinging antenna, sound familiar?
I wouldn't worry too much. Nobody's going to believe that bollox... are they?Scientific Make-up of the Detection Cartridges
The cartridges intelligence is made up from samples of less than 1 Molecule of material in each, during manufacture these are bombarded with safe forms of radio waves via a highly advanced technological atomic processing method, after which the molecular samples are then imprinted in to the centre of the metal body of the cartridge. The scientific technology of the design of the detection cartridges is highly complex and intricate in make-up.
But, but.... not only does it detect 'gunpoder', it also detects 'Picnic Acid'
Yum yum.
Given the writing, is it possible that it's just a piss-take?
The cartridges intelligence is made up from samples of less than 1 Molecule of material in each,
Does that actually mean "nothing"? No claims of the item having been tested. No testimonials.
Composition 98% Non farrous materials used
A joke, surely??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
Thanks for the tip off Starwatcher.
So good that so many are on this case. Believe more action to follow soon. Watch this space!
Have written as follows to the XK-9 people (Good Star trek sounding name! Wasn't it a Fiat Sports Coupe as well?)
As follows:
Dear Sirs,
Your website and XK-9 product have come to our attention.
Pease note that your product bears a stiking resemblance to the ADE 651, GT200, SNIFFEX, HEDD1, Quadro-Tracker, Mole Alpha 6 PSD 2, etc
If yo are not aware of the controversy surrounding these products I recommend that you do some searches.
It may be that you have been fooled into thinking the XK-9 works by dodgy demonstrations.
It would be good if you can supply any info on why/how XK-9 works? Also, whether you have any independent test results (inc. protocols)?
If not, are you willing to undertake independent proper testing.
I would appreciate a quick response. If not we will report you the Police, forward your details to our national media contacts, your local media, and across our blog network.
I am sure that if you are a respectable company, you will wish to reassure us, and not have to go on the run like Jim McCormick, and Gary Bolton.
Best wishes,
The Fake Detector Campaign Group
Will report back any response. If anyone else wants to help report them to the authorities, be good. Did search on ADE 651 and first few search results pages are dominated by the anti blogs and news articles. Can't see the XK-9 getting very far if we add it to the rogues gallery.
Keep up the good work all you campaigners. Special respect for the ongoing great work of Techowiz. Also bows to Matt for his extraordinary demolition job. Very useful!! What would we do without him. Bleedin' genius!
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
Oh no another bloody fake stick on a swivel.
Well spotted starwatcher and thanks for the info.
regards
We've done a double-blind test where the equipment was only successful in discovering in 20 percent of the cases, when just a random choice would give you 25 percent -- so there's no statistical significance to having the equipment," Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told CNN
Response from the XK-9 guys and my response to that. Let' see how this develops....
Apologies for my typing. Something weird on my email account and only just noticed.
Dear Sir
Thank you for your email.
A few months ago we were made aware of some “issues” regarding this item and as a result we immediately removed it from our website, unfortunately it appears there are still some links to the historical webpage retained in some search engines that may take a little longer to self eradicate. However I would be grateful if you could fill us in on the full controversy regarding the item and anyone associated with it. We have no desire to be involved with any product or supplier is less than 100% genuine.
I have never heard of your group but would appreciate a link to your group and perhaps some more information about you and your background.
Dear Simon,
I am glad you appear to be taking the issue seriously. You can of course get those pages deleted easily enough
As for the controersy. Well, you only need to type in ADE 651, SNIFFEX, MOLE, GT200, HEDD1 or Jim McCormick, Gary Bolton or ATSC or Global Technical, to get plenty of hits that will tell you all you need to know. Sufice to say,no rational explantion has been given for why this type of swivelling aerial shold detect anything at all. And as I said, no such deivce has ever passed a proper test, and the sellers tend to avoid proper testing.
If you want a good ume of the techncal issue se a rentpost by MattatUKSkeptics.com under the ADE Thread.
Ayway, please letme knowwhere ou sourced thi produt plase?
As for us, we are an independent campagn group sing the internet to spred the wrd about scams and fruds.You ill frgive me ifI retain anonymity as e are dealin wth some dodgy chaacers in thi mtter.
I a course delighed that ou ave stopped selling the XK-9. an I put out statement o that effect. Also that yo will cooperat in futher invetistigations?
any thanks foryour propt esponse.
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks