Land mine detection

The selectivity inherent to TNT detection by amplified fluorescent polymers, as described in Section 4, helps to rriinirriize false-positives in land mine detection. These sensor devices respond only to nitroaromatics and similarly small, electron-deficient analytes, which are found typically only in or close to explosives and explosive devices. Field-tests to date have demonstrated that these devices are at least as reliable as trained dogs in detecting explosives that contain nitroaromatics. There is still uncertainty concerning what chemical that dogs actually detect when searching for explosives [17]. This... 

Figure 10 Factors affecting land mine detection using chemical-based methods. Illustration courtesy of ICxTechnologies.

Prospector class III UAV for Army Future Combat Systems and land mine detection. 

The explosive simulator (M80) is used in boobytraps, land mine detection and deactivation training programs. It is used to simulate hand grenades, booby traps, land mines, and rifle or artillery fire... 

The approaches and methods described here are selected from a much larger set of neutron methods, which have been proposed and, in some cases, experimentally tested. At the time of this writing (2006), neutron methods are still not in common use for contraband, explosive or land mine detection, despite their clear potential for obtaining more detailed information than X-ray methods. The reasons for this are not immediately clear from the physics however, it is important to examine the practical issues that have arisen with neutron systems. The issues with larger accelerator-based systems are usually... 

Two examples illustrate this with practical source strengths and detectors. Consider an electronic neutron source such as a DT generator with 10s neutrons/s, a detector of area 45 cm2 (typical 3-inch diameter detector) and efficiency 1. For distances of 100 cm and a mass of 1kg, we get 1.25 counts/s. Another view might be a truck scanner with 100 kg of material (factor of 102 increase in count rate) and distances of 200 cm (a factor of 16 decrease) which would be a factor of about 6 overall, 8cps. If we reduce the distance to 50 and 20 cm, we would get a factor of more than 100 or about 123 cps/kg, respectively. Just by way of reference, PELAN operating in those conditions for land mine detection gets about lOcps for a 100 g mass, so we are about right in this calculation. 

Fig. 6. Detection geometry appropriate to land mine detection.

Robledo L., Carrasco M., Mery D., A survey of land mine detection technology, Int. J. Remote Sens., 30(9-10), 2399-2410, 2009. 

Bertrand G. and Bruschini C., Sensor Technologies for the Detection of Antipersonnel Mines, A Survey of Current Research and System Developments. EPFL- LAMI DeTeC. Lausanne, Switzerland. Bibliography Page 39 GAO- 01-239 Land Mine Detection, 1996. 

Zuin L., Innocent R, Fabris D., Lunardon M., Nebbia G., Viesti G., Cinausero M., and Palomba M., Experimental optimisation of a moderated 252Cf source for land mine detection, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 449(1), 416-426, 2000. 

---