Paige,
In a nutshell:
1. Re XRF: The x-ray energies CDEX uses to detect and discriminate explosives does not have the penetrating power for the application you are suggesting, not anywhere near the penetrating power of x-ray imaging equipment used at airports.
2. Re UVF: It doesn't work well enough for airport screening applications because it does not have the throughput speed required. I believe that is why the Army/Navy took a look-see, then dismissed the technology.
It didn't have the shoot speed/scan footprint required to be practical. Believe me, if it did it would be in airports by now.
So what is CDEX doing, finding niche markets where those limitations are not application critical. For example, Valimed need not worry about performing at large stand-off distances (it operates under an inch), it does not require a large scan footprint (less than a square centimeter- the new cuvette even smaller), it does not have to be sensitive enough to detect trace quantities (bulk detection only) and it does not need to worry about hostile environments (all signals are shielded in an optically pristine box).
Standard commercial fluorimeter performance IMO.
How about the meth gun? I believe it will be much of the same. Very short stand-off distance and with a small footprint... etc., etc.
We'll soon see if CDEX decides to be "more transparent" than they were with Valimed when it comes to disclosing performance specs.
My forecast, expect several prototypes before any production- late 2007- early 2008.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
