German Government Provides €29 Million in Funding for Explosive Research

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Research is providing €29 million in funding for 16 new collaborative projects for the detection of toxic and explosive substances. Altogether 73 partner entities are involved in these 16 projects, ranging from universities, scientific institutes, defense companies and the police. From what is mentioned in the ministry’s public statements it seems that unfortunately no start-ups are involved in these projects.

One interesting and potentially breakthrough technology example is the project with the easily memorable project name IRLDEX, which aims to be used against Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) through a new infrared laser that takes advantage of the unique absorption rates of explosive materials. The project leaders for this invention are the renowned Fraunhofer Institut and the Bundeskriminalamt (German Federal Police). Interestingly enough are the remarks of project manager Dr. Oliver Ambacher, who is thinking about future possible commercial applications of this technology for identifying food-diseases (Gammelfleisch) and pesticides in textiles. While the question arises of how to spin-off such a technology from this public-private mission, IRLDEX might become another powerful example of a technology developed firstly for security that later addresses commercial needs and earns healthy returns in the marketplace for its investors and founders.

The ministry’s other research projects focus for example on the early and reliable identification of biological pathogens that cause epidemics. They also concentrate on the detection of noxious drinking water contaminants. There are also some projects that focus on researching the use of terahertz technology in security technology applications. More information on BMBF's website

Standoff Detection - what are the benchmarks for such technologies?

One of the most difficult problems to solve in security technologies in the ability to know whether a person holds or a vehicle contains explosives. As we discuss standoff technologies today let’s first make sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Remote detection technologies allow personnel to respond to the threat of a suspicious object by taking a sample or a ‘sniff’ up close. This affords the luxury of getting results from a safer, remote distance. These remote detection technologies are not the technologies we’ll talk about today. While very important, today we are looking at situations where both the responder and the technology are removed from the situation.

There are many options in designing a standoff detection system. Should the sensor sniff for chemicals (in any stage of life) or should it rely on detecting different parts of the bomb such as wires or triggers. Also should it be ground based system or what about an air borne platform?

Last month TSWG posted requirements of its explosives subgroup. Their requirements should be a good benchmark for what standoff detectors should meet if they will bring innovation to this area. Here are the goals listed for explosive detection in vehicles:

And TSWG's requirements for explosives carried on someone’s person:
If your technology meets or exceeds these requirements you should enter the Global Security Challenge 2008.

Rail Security – the Slow Metamorphosis of Trains into Airliners

Many aviation experts continue to complain that security controls at airports are inefficient and ineffective. Their arguments are only strengthened by the fact that testing the system usually reveals breathtaking gaps. Nevertheless, terrorists are known to be adaptive by nature and have responded to increased vigilance and technological improvements at airports by switching their ’loci operandi’ to trains, as the attacks in Madrid ('04) and London ('05) and the averted plots in Germany ('06) painfully illustrated.

The need to beef up train security is apparent and two interesting examples below show different approaches and success rates:

German police authorities (BKA) put facial recognition to a test at the central train-station in Mainz in 2007 – with mixed results at its best. They tried to recognize 200 registered commuters (so people purposefully took a designated picture at the beginning of the test). However even in these artificial conditions they reached a recognition success rate of only about 60% during the day and less than 20% at night. These results were so disappointing that the BKA chief said he could not recommend facial recognition, at least at its current level of maturity, for wider use by the federal authorities.

Last week Amtrak – the US train behemoth – announced the implementation of airport-like security checks. Now some travelers will be exposed to checks before they board trains by technologies like Smiths Detection’s portable explosive detection devices. Amtrak did however, stop short of installing fixed metal-detectors, which would trigger lengthy cues and erase the last benefit that trains have over airlines – that of convenience. This columnist believes though that as long as rail security remains significantly lower than airlines, it will remain a target of convenience for terrorists.