Quantum Radars : What Are They?

[Saaho]

So it's best you leave Bollywood somewhere else before you start typing here.

As I said, you are a very weird fellow. You like to focus on the exact when you do not even know enough to generalise.

Do you have source of your claims? Or do you have prior use of satellite image to detect and prove gun battle and who fired first?

BTW, "generalization" require way more knowledge than to comment on specific details. The guy who does not know specifics cann't generalize accurately.

 

[randomradio]

Huh?
Have you seen the video of scuffle between Indian and Chinese forces? If someone fires a bullet in such a fight, good luck for your satellite to detect anything.

They have even killed each other without firing any bullets even when armed. That's proof enough that both sides are disciplined. When guns come into play the game's going to be different. No one's gonna bunch up like that.

Do you have source of your claims? Or do you have prior use of satellite image to detect and prove gun battle and who fired first?

BTW, "generalization" require way more knowledge than to comment on specific details. The guy who does not know specifics cann't generalize accurately.

I already gave you proof. Deciphiring that requires your own knowledge, which you completely lack.

 

[Saaho]

This was your very first statement: Problem with this analysis is that none of the countries can produce any evidence of who did what.

Indeed! If you have a prior evidence or instance of using satellite images to prove who fired first then I am all ears. If not then well... sky is blue.

They have even killed each other without firing any bullets even when armed. That's proof enough that both sides are disciplined. When guns come into play the game's going to be different. No one's gonna bunch up like that.

No, the ask is "Who fired the first shot". Simple. Show me an evidence of detecting that using a satellite image. A prior usage perhaps.

 

[Saaho]

I already gave you proof. Deciphiring that requires your own knowledge, which you completely lack.

All you gave me are 2 videos where they showed satellites having a video feed. Thats it. Nothing else. It can detect a rocket launch at best. If you claim that is good enough to detect bullets being fired than you need to do better than that.

 

[randomradio]

Indeed! If you have a prior evidence or instance of using satellite images to prove who fired first then I am all ears. If not then well... sky is blue.

No, the ask is "Who fired the first shot". Simple. Show me an evidence of detecting that using a satellite image. A prior usage perhaps.

No one captures Bollywood on satellites.

 

[Saaho]

Deciphiring that requires your own knowledge, which you completely lack.

Fantastic claims require equally large proof. And onus is on the one who is making the claim. Simple.

No one captures Bollywood on satellites.

Buzz off dear. You dont have any evidence and are making your own chinese inspired fantasies.

 

[randomradio]

Nobody on this thread got what I meant. If you know anyone in certain specific areas of reconn you should speak with them for anecdotes. The Mig-25 used to be capable of some interesting stuff 20 years back. Though static.

Anyways. Carry on.

Nothing what I stated there had anything to do with recon though. It was a separate point about radar tech, independent from what Saaho claimed.

 

[suryakiran]

All you gave me are 2 videos where they showed satellites having a video feed. Thats it. Nothing else. It can detect a rocket launch at best. If you claim that is good enough to detect bullets being fired than you need to do better than that.

A static camera that I checked in 2010 used for surveillance for coastal security could tell me the number plate at 20 kms, restricted mainly by the height of the mounting. 5 kms in extreme low visibility. 1 km in even lower light conditions.

Not very sure of bullets, though.

Edit : The low visibility was not the number plate, but a man sized object. Sorry. My bad.

Nothing what I stated there had anything to do with recon though. It was a separate point about radar tech, independent from what Saaho claimed.

aah ok. No idea about the radar part. so will need to wait for the future!

 

[Saaho]

If it's only radar then it will not resolve anything smaller than a few meters or maybe half a meter . That's simply because of the wavelength limit of radio waves. you will somehow need to integrate sub millimetre wave technology for facial detection.

The Face Scan of the Future Could Be a Radar Image of Your Beating Heart

Imagine unlocking devices, withdrawing money from an ATM, and even entering your building all without having to prove who you are. Now, imagine a world

gizmodo.com

The resolution in general is defined by Reyligh's criteria.

The Rayleigh Criterion

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

For X-Band radar, the limit will be in Cms.

 

[Saaho]

A static camera that I checked in 2010 used for surveillance for coastal security could tell me the number plate at 20 kms, restricted mainly by the height of the mounting. 5 kms in extreme low visibility. 1 km in even lower light conditions.

Not very sure of bullets, though.

My biggest counter claim is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". If a party says X did it first and there is no evidence of that then it is NOT possible to claim that X indeed did not do it first. Simply because the event like a gun fire could have happened during night or in shadow or occluded by a hill or during a time when there were no satellites over-head.

BTW, this issue is independent of "futuristic" or rather "fantastic" claims.

 

[Saaho]

Future can even mean tomorrow actually, since these technologies have been in the works since the last 10-15 years. These new-gen, all-weather disruptive technologies are among the most deepest state secrets. So I obviously can't put a date on them. But it's reached a point where we are talking about the foreseeable future, and that includes the possiblity of it already being operational in some capacity somewhere.

We are currently at the threshold of going to the next level beyond electronics.

The truth: These technologies are already operational in lab conditions. China officially announced this tech has been under field testing since 2016. The Russians claimed to have an operational system by 2021. The Americans are also likely to be testing these technologies. Obviously India is also more or less at this stage as well, we aren't behind.

The world is in the process of entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution. And moving beyond electronics is the foundation it will be based on.

You are seriously sounding a lot like Praveen Sawhaney. I have a question, do you have *ANY* background in engineering? If you had, you would not have made such statements.

To quote one my colleagues who has actually worked on many of these cutting edge technologies, a lot looks beautiful in brochure but the moment you put it to a real world scenario, it breaks so horribly. There is a reason I told you "generalization is HARD". Problem with likes of you who have never worked with technologies is that they think that generalization is easier than special cases. Do yourself a favour and just do this much.

Try making something real, say a face detector using a webcam and do it from scratch. You will be surprised how easy it is to get things that work once but fail many in many scenarios.

The reason you find me weird is because you have never tried implementing things by yourself, which is why you fall for shiny brochures, stall posters and videos and claims.

 

[Saaho]

I told ya already. No point in pursuing the exact, when you can't even generalise properly.

LOL! Generalize first then handle specific cases. Lets see this way newton should have written the general law of gravitation first and then should have observed the apple fall (though apple story is possibly a fiction). Once more, generalization is HARD. If you cann't answer specifics, don't generalize.

 

[randomradio]

A static camera that I checked in 2010 used for surveillance for coastal security could tell me the number plate at 20 kms, restricted mainly by the height of the mounting. 5 kms in extreme low visibility. 1 km in even lower light conditions.

Not very sure of bullets, though.

He doesn't understand his own argument, so no point discussing it with him.

aah ok. No idea about the radar part. so will need to wait for the future!

Anyway, the radar I'm referring to is very different from the standard definition of radar. It changes the game completely since it doesn't use classic mechanics, but quantum. So we are talking massive bandwidth and across the spectrum. The Russians plan to introduce one such radar on the Su-57 at some point, and it will function from 1 Hz to 100 GHz, that's basically the entire microwave spectrum. A prototype has apparently been in ground tests since last year. So I suppose it will see operational service as a ground radar first before it's introduced in airborne and spaceborne applications.

 

[randomradio]

You are seriously sounding a lot like Praveen Sawhaney. I have a question, do you have *ANY* background in engineering? If you had, you would not have made such statements.

To quote one my colleagues who has actually worked on many of these cutting edge technologies, a lot looks beautiful in brochure but the moment you put it to a real world scenario, it breaks so horribly. There is a reason I told you "generalization is HARD". Problem with likes of you who have never worked with technologies is that they think that generalization is easier than special cases. Do yourself a favour and just do this much.

Try making something real, say a face detector using a webcam. You will be surprised how easy it is to get things that work once but fail many in many scenarios.

The reason you find me weird is because you have never tried implementing things by yourself, which is why you fall for shiny brochures, stall posters and videos and claims.

Dude, you don't know what I'm talking about.

Also when things go operational, it means they have reached a point far beyond rosy brochures.

Also the reality is that some types of cutting edge technologies reach the military first before hitting the civilian market.

The reason I find you weird is because you don't live in the real world. Nothing to do with your understanding of technology, which I've neither disputed, nor do I really care.

Lets see this way newton should have written the general law of gravitation first

Haha. Maybe he should have. That's why Einstein's General Theory of Relativity reigns supreme.

I can always come down to your level as well.

 

[Saaho]

Also when things go operational, it means they have reached a point far beyond rosy brochures.

LOL! You will be surprised how disconnect engineering is from marketing.

In marketing pitchbook written by OFB folks, the choice of plastic based magazine should have been better because it was transparent, easy to see the bullets. When INSAS saw the actual use, that plastic cracked in cold weather of J&K/Laddakh.

Novelty is hated by all engineers expect when they are making their resume -- which incidentally is a marketing pitchbook.

And no, operational means ziltch. Its a beauracratic term. Battle tested is what matters.

Leave all that, just find ONE. Just ONE single evidence of a successful answering of question "Who fired the gun shots first" by a satellite based feed. Technology, if you don't know, is usually pretty specific. What works in one use-case may not work in another, even if you think it will.

In this case, for the use-case you are trying to claim for has so many obvious blockers that it will not see a proper use. Heck, you had to ASSUME that when shooting start somehow soldiers WILL have to assume some "formation". So if I want to fake such evidence then all I need to do is to ONLY assume such formation without shooting OR shoot and do not assume such formation. Pretty easy to falsify.

 

[randomradio]

And no, operational means ziltch. Its a beauracratic term. Battle tested is what matters.

Couldn't find the facepalm emoji. So... *facepalm*

 

[Saaho]

Couldn't find the facepalm emoji. So... *facepalm*

Yup! keep on facepalming. There are too many operational systems that are utterly incomplete.

But lets not even go there because your sin is even bigger. It is that you are not even talking about operational systems or the usecases they are built to fit. You are fantasizing about a use-case for which is possibly not even in the original specs of a probable systems. It most likely did not mention anything about: "Detecting who fired the first shot in a military confrontation". Thats a problem for which a technical solution is not feasible. You can keep on dreaming about your fantastic technologies which are most likely nice marketing stories sold to fool likes of you.

 

[Saaho]

That's why Einstein's General Theory of Relativity reigns supreme.

Good that you mentioned it.
But what came first?
Special theory of relativity or general theory of relativity?
Could Einstein have proposed general theory of relativity before special theory of relativity?

See? You even fail in that.
I guess you are reverse-Einstein. You generalize first and then deal with specific or special cases. Good!

 

[shaxm]

The Face Scan of the Future Could Be a Radar Image of Your Beating Heart

Imagine unlocking devices, withdrawing money from an ATM, and even entering your building all without having to prove who you are. Now, imagine a world

gizmodo.com

The resolution in general is defined by Reyligh's criteria.

The Rayleigh Criterion

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

For X-Band radar, the limit will be in Cms.

Do some research of the link you posted. It seems you your only interest is to win a argument no matter what. You just called the wavelenght limit that I mentioned as 'Reyligh's criteria' and use it as a counter argument.

This is the paper they are refering to:

https://sctracy.github.io/chensong.github.io/pdf/mobicom17.pdf

They are using lasers for their 'cardiac scan'. Both visible and RF frequencies, and just because they are looking at reflections, they call it RADAR.
This system you posted about has ABSOLUTELY NO LINK WITH ANY TRADITIONAL RADAR which works with radio frequencies, and they do not have the resolution limit for face scan due to your 'Reyligh's criteria'.

 

[Saaho]

Do some research of the link you posted. It seems you your only interest is to win a argument no matter what. You just called the wavelenght limit that I mentioned as 'Reyligh's criteria' and use it as a counter argument.

You said the following :

If it's only radar then it will not resolve anything smaller than a few meters or maybe half a meter . That's simply because of the wavelength limit of radio waves. you will somehow need to integrate sub millimetre wave technology for facial detection.

X-Band radars have wavelength in order of Cm, which is what I corrected you on. Resolution of few meters or half a meter is off by an order or two of magnitude. The Reyligh's limit is in few Cms.

Now for detection and recognition of faces, you don't need sub mm radar, mm wave radar is more than enough. It has been reported in literature : Face Verification Using mmWave Radar Sensor - IEEE Conference Publication

I doubt however, if it is usable in a weapons system.

The link I posted was just above one more paper that I read, I guess I copied it wrong. That said mm Wave radars are more than enough to detect and recognize faces.

Needless to say, mmWave Radars are fairly common and available commercially. Police radars in Ka band come to mind.