ADE 651 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geo8rge (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 5 November 2009 (clean up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:52, 5 November 2009 by Geo8rge (talk | contribs) (clean up)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The ADE 651 is an expensive device widely used by Iraqi police, produced by ATSC (UK) , that claims to be effective at detecting the presence and perhaps location of explosives. Many experts including The Amazing Randi, who offered $1 million to anyone who could prove its effectiveness, and USAF Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack (retired) doubt its effectiveness.

It is claimed that the ADE 651 failed to prevent many of the bombings in Iraq.

Previous linkage to Cumberland industries refer to an actual ion sniffer which does detect explosives using wipe swaps placed in front of a air sample detector.

The ADE 651 is a dowsing rod being marketed with the claims of being able to detect explosives.

Dowsing rod type explosive detectors

ADE 651 is one of a few devices that are derided as being high tech dowsing rods because of their appearance and lack of proven efficacy. Others include Sniffex and ek-9 GT200. These devices feature a

Testing by Labratories

A previous version of this technology was tested by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico http://www.justnet.org/Lists/JUSTNET%20Resources/Attachments/440/moleeval_apr02.pdf and was not capable of performing at a level higher than normal random discoveries.

Listed below is the summary from that report

Summary--
Sandia National Laboratories participated in a double-blind field test on January 29, 2002, at the Rocky Mountain office of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) in Denver, Colorado to test the explosives detection capability of the MOLE Programmable System manufactured by Global Technical Ltd. of Kent, UK. The target material used was approximately 20 grams of C4 explosives placed in a plastic bag with a twist top and enclosed in a plastic 35-mm film canister. Based on statistical analysis of the double-blind test results, the MOLE performs no better than a random selection process. To assure that no contamination occurred that might have affected test results, the boxes used during the test were tested for the presence of explosives contamination using an ion mobility spectrometer. The results of the ion mobility spectrometer test indicate there was no contamination.

Additional Information --
In October 1995, Sandia National Laboratories examined a product that appeared physically nearly identical to the MOLE. This product was the Quadro Tracker, which was manufactured by the Quadro Corporation of Harleyville, South Carolina. The visible physical differences between the two products appeared to be the product labels and the handle-programming chip. On the Quadro Tracker the programming chip was interchangeable and could be inserted into the handle where on the MOLE, the programming chip is permanently fixed into the handle, as the raised area under the label. Additional information on the Quadro Tracker can be located by performing a search on the World Wide Web using the key words Quadro and Tracker.

What is scary is that for the same price as 3 to 5 trained explosive detector dogs someone has been lining their pockets with money for a piece of machinery which cannot be proven to work. Which means..... the vendor as well as the government officials which have been signing contracts for these should be tried for criminal negligence since it didn't detect the two tons of explosives in downtown Baghdad October 25, 2009, killing 155 and wounding hundreds, which passed at least one ADE651-equipped checkpoint.

Quotes from past studies on dousing rod type detectors...

"Although there may be other types of nonoperational devices around, dowsing devices for explosives detection have emerged during the past couple of years... .None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests. In fact, all testing of these inventions has shown these devices to perform no better than random chance."

From the National Institute of Justice Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications (NIJ Guide 100- 99); http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178913.htm

“The SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector performed no better than random chance over the course of testing…" "The SNIFFEX did not detect explosives" "The SNIFFEX failed to show any indication of this much larger quantity of explosives…" "Based upon the observed test results, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector is not capable of detecting explosives..."— US Navy

"Had a peer review been performed prior to testing, the Department could have avoided spending $408,750 on this technology.” — The US Inspector General"

References:

External Links:

Categories: