skitahoe,
"I also see no reason that a camera type device can't also have a light source that only operates in certain UV or IR frequencies."
You're right, they can, in fact that's how almost all spectrometers work. They have a source of radiation to incident upon the target and a detector. A camera normally refers to visible images. Night vision goggles rely on passive IR radiating from a source. LIDAR uses a laser "light" source as you are describing.
"Could a short high energy jolt of IR or UV achieve the needed sort of fluorescence that normally would take 30 seconds with a much lower energy source."
Yes, I beleive that that concept is used to opitimize the system, but there are limitations. Let's say you start out with a low intensity UV/IR source which only excites 50% of the target surface. With the natural occuring noise you obtain a certain signal-to-noise ratio. Now as you increase the intensity of the energy source 100% of the availabe target surface is excited with little increase in background noise. You have achieved the highest SNR return signal. Increasing the intensity of the energy source will produce no further improvment in the SNR simply because all availble molecules (or atoms for XRF) are already being excited to produce the intensity of the return signal.
So in designing the system one criteria is that you use a high enough intensity energy source to assure that 100% of the available target is fluorecing under all conditions.
That is one factor in producing the shortest possible integration time.
Bear in mind that Valimed is measuring a very small footprint on a bulk target at about an inch and it's taking 15-30 seconds.
Remember their claims of detecting trace explosives (PPB) at 2 meters in real time?
Yes this revolutionary technolgy has matured quite nicely since MP has taken the reins! LOL!!
