On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:39:11 -0800, "Dana"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:40:03 -0800, "Dana"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:37:33 -0800, "Dana"
wrote:


You have not established that the signature (difference) of
such a device can be discriminated from a different device.

It is being done today.


What "it"?

Devices are being discriminated by their signature.
Various sensors are doing this.

Do you know how many MP3 players are out there?

Yeah, so what. There are devices that can detect semiconducter junctions.
MP3 players have semiconductor junctions, hence they can be detected.



No, you can detect semiconductor junctions then, but not the
identity, nor function, of what larger device you have
detected as having semiconductors.



Now how about the phones that can record?

They also have semiconductor junctions, hence they can also be detected.

Again, we are not merely trying to detect some arbitrary
substance, it has to be a complete detection that
discriminates a recording MP3 player. If all we cared about
was that "something" was there, we have no need to consider
semiconductor presence at all.


A theory about
what might be possible someday, is not same thing as what IS
being done today.

Semiconductor junctions can be detected today.

Again, it's pointless.




You seem to be vaguely claiming it's possible without really
considering EXACTLY what is necessary.

Hogwash.
You seem not to understand what can be done with electronics.

You seem unable to describe any way to discriminate the very
thing this thread is about.


There are some devices that use the priciples of a MRI and shrink it down to
a hand held sized device to scan for explosives.

Ok, but again, it doesn't tell us the purpose of common
items like plastic, or semiconductors. Explosives aren't
going to be used in practically everything that plugs into a
wall or takes a battery.

Since the compounds in
explosives give off a unique signature after being exposed to a strong
magnetic field, that signature is then stored in memory.

Maybe some, but not all will give off a magnetic field. It
doesn't matter though, there is nothing in particular in an
MP3 player that would discriminate it from a cell phone. Is
it not obvious to you that common items people are allowed
to have, can't be false detected? Perhaps whoever is
subject to this search is first told to empty all pockets of
such things, but as already written, we'd need to know such
a scenario to delve into this kinds of tangents.

Now your sensor
emits a magnetic field, and the reciever looks for the signature of the
explosives.

Great, if a recording MP3 player is made out of explosives.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between random
non-applicable information and the crucial details necessary
to discriminate a recording MP3 player.


So it is only a matter of expanding your signature library, and your
receiver can be programmed to look for pretty much anything.

Nope, and you might as well stop pretending you know about
this stuff because you have pretty well given yourself away.
There is no one signature an MP3 player would have, it's not
made of one unique material and there are myriad different
players with different % of several materials, but
practically all of them are commonplace, unlike explosives.


This is only one of many new tools that are out.
The semiconductor junction detector has been out for around 30 years.

Show one recording MP3 player having been detected like
this, anyone who claims they have a specific device that
does it and can explain how- because it sure as heck isn't
using a signature like with explosives.