Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Build Science Technology

Radar That Sees Through Walls Built In Garage 63

szczys writes: Building radar in his garage is nothing new to Greg Charvat. He has a PhD in this stuff and has literally written the book (and a University course) on building your own radar system. This time around it's Phased-Array Radar. This is more than just judging the speed of a baseball or Ferrari. This rig can actually see through walls. Greg uses the example of a soda can to illustrate the quality and resolution possible from this type of system.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Radar That Sees Through Walls Built In Garage

Comments Filter:
  • by magi ( 91730 ) on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @01:36PM (#49424193) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure you can use various radar-blocking materials to build walls in a garage, not just wood and plastic, but also metal. So what's so special in factory-made ones that they can't be penetrated by this radar? Is it patented? Or a government secret?

    • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @01:55PM (#49424327)

      I think the writer is saying on average people are more likely to build with plywood or drywall in their garage instead of less permissive materials like brick, concrete, or metal.

      So, statistically speaking, a radar system is more effective against walls built in a garage than walls built outside of a garage.

      As usual, the article may provide clarification, but I've found I can avoid the trouble of reading them by simply making wild assumptions.

      • by wendyo ( 168574 )

        In TFA, it said he saw "a 12 oz soda can through a 4” thick concrete wall at a stand-off range of 20".

  • Move away, NSA and other Big Brothers — real and wannabes. The Little Brother can watch too now.

    No need for time-travel. "Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone"

  • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @01:57PM (#49424337) Homepage

    This is exactly the sort of thing i love seeing a project and nice explanation on. This sort of thing will never be my career path, but, is the sort of thing I might play with as a hobby project and I love seeing the areas a person can get into without much formal training expand.

    Of course, I already have a use for such a thing but.... I think it will be easier to use a small drill and a camera to find out if the rumors of my great grandmother's old safe still being in the walls somewhere (plastered over of course) is true.

    Have to imagine that will be cheaper and faster (if not cooler) than building one of these.

    • Wouldn't one of those stud finders be easier than drilling a bunch of holes in the wall?

      • Or use a metal detector? Chances are the safe will not be too deep in the wall, and unlike pipes and wires, which would give off short beeps, a safe would register an entire square face to the detector.

      • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        Nope stud finders wont even find studs in my house because its old enough to have horse hair plaster, so the studs are covered by horizontal wood slats. SOME stud finders kinda work, most don't work well (admittedly, its been a few years, maybe they got better?)

        Also it wouldn't really identify the object, just that it looked like something more solid was there.

        The reply of metal detector might work better....but there is also a metal chimney pipe for an old gas fireplace that used to be in the room also in

  • by trevc ( 1471197 ) on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @02:19PM (#49424457)
    Can it also see through walls that were not built in a garage?
  • by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @03:00PM (#49424719)

    In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES [google.com] , the Supreme Court held in 2001 that:

    Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

    in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.

    By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.

    • By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own),

      How dare those scum at MIT [mit.edu] teach people how to surveil their neighbors and stuff.

    • I doubt a home-built phased array radar will ever be considered "in general public use."

      Besides, these devices only see thru walls built inside a garage, which would generally require a search warrant to see either side of...

    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.

      I cannot fault your analysis of that particular sentence since I'm certain that some lawyer somewhere will eventually argue that when the "not in general public use" criterion is absent it somehow becomes a "reasona

      • by uncqual ( 836337 )

        I think we are seeing the stage being set for a similar situation with drones.

        If the FAA rules allow private drones to fly at low altitudes over private property without consent of the person controlling the property and the legislators don't pass laws restricting this (the FAA doesn't make rules about privacy - safety is their charter), the expectation of privacy will be reduced as more and more private citizens fly drones at the lower altitudes. Then, police will be free to do so as well and peer into you

    • In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES [google.com] , the Supreme Court held in 2001 that:

      Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

      in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.

      By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.

      Almost makes it sound like they won't need a search warrant anymore, as long as enough people build these things and put them into general use.

  • by koan ( 80826 )

    The same sort of thing has been reduced in size and cost for multirotors, it is not publicly available yet, but try to imagine a consumer drone that can see thru walls.

  • Put on your tinfoil hat and turn on your microwave oven.

    CAUTION: do not stick your head in the microwave.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...