IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Karoline
post Nov 26 2009, 03:26 PM
Post #26


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 26 2009, 06:49 AM) *
Ultrasound for a metahuman naturally would probably look something like this:
http://209.85.12.231/670/83/upload/p3438696.jpg
(Original Version of the photo: http://209.85.12.231/670/83/upload/p3438699.gif )

It would probably not look like Dare Devil's interpretation (which I think many runners think of it as in some way, even without thinking of DD):
http://www.awn.com/files/imagepicker/1/hou...vil_shadoww.jpg

That said...some kind of future-tech equipment that using computed ultrasound imaging would probably look something like long-range versions of what we see today as 4D ultrasound in utero imaging:
http://www.3d-4d-ultrasounds.com/images/ga...efore-after.jpg

Basically...something that looks close to clay in shades of bronze with some really dark odd black spots where the sound isn't picking anything up quite right, and probably a little worse than the last image due to range. But if it's future-tech, it wouldn't be that much worse.

However, natural ultrasound would probably look worse and much more like the first image, but possibly with a 3 dimensional depth and feel much more like the 4D imagery (the last link).


I think that daredevil vision is more like what you would get from ultra wideband radar (which can see through stuff).

And someone mentioned an image lag due to the 'slow' speed of sound, but I can't really buy that because bats use echolocation to catch insects in flight, so they must be fairly darn accurate, though I suppose that is at 'melee' ranges.

I guess it is a complimation of all these problems. A slight lag, unused to the vision, and various other small problems. I suppose this is something along the lines of why thermographic vision has a bit of problem in complete darkness (as I recall), that and a mechanical standpoint of not wanting one type of vision to be perfect in all situations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heath Robinson
post Nov 26 2009, 05:28 PM
Post #27


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,263
Joined: 4-March 08
From: Blighty
Member No.: 15,736



QUOTE (Karoline @ Nov 26 2009, 03:26 PM) *
And someone mentioned an image lag due to the 'slow' speed of sound, but I can't really buy that because bats use echolocation to catch insects in flight, so they must be fairly darn accurate, though I suppose that is at 'melee' ranges.

Insects in flight can be fairly easy to track even when you're a mere human (we don't have enlarged audio processing centres in our brains). The bats can probably follow insects in flight using the sound of their flight apparatus alone. The bats can also predict where the insect will be, head for that, and adjust their estimates as they get new information. Hybrid approaches are always superior.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Nov 26 2009, 07:22 PM
Post #28


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Nov 26 2009, 10:36 AM) *
I've always thought of ultrasound vision just like the screen shown on those pregnant women ultrasound device. You can see shapes, but hardly any detail.
The classic images of prenatal ultrasounds are primitive compared to current technology, not to mention by 2070 technology levels. We've had diagnostic prenatal ultrasound for about 40 years, with only changes in resolution. The amount of detail that you can get from current ultrasound images is pretty amazing. It's the lack of color cues and artifcating that is disconcerting. I imagine that by 2070, the overlay will also have a "predicted" color or various color schemes (like current colorization techniques used in movies today... see the wikipedia article on film colorization for details).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 26 2009, 07:42 PM
Post #29


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



QUOTE (Karoline @ Nov 26 2009, 04:26 PM) *
I think that daredevil vision is more like what you would get from ultra wideband radar (which can see through stuff).

That would have to be one hell of an ultra wideband radar to come out with anything more than spec representations.
Current UWB radar's that we make are only able to give top-down views with dots representing highest concentration of static in pattern groups of interest (most often human).

UWB is better used for things like cross-talking wireless communication systems rather than imaging systems.

QUOTE
And someone mentioned an image lag due to the 'slow' speed of sound, but I can't really buy that because bats use echolocation to catch insects in flight, so they must be fairly darn accurate, though I suppose that is at 'melee' ranges.
.
A common fly flies around at 4.5 miles per hour.
The speed of sound is 761 mph.
The average rifle round speed is a little more than 2,000 mph.
Boxer's/MMA/Martial Arts punching speeds can reach around 20 to 30 mph.

So really...you're only lag here is something around 761 miles per hour.
There's really no lag aside from that.

Basically...anything traveling faster than just under 1/4th of a mile per second, (1,100 feet per second).
Now...here's a reference for that...
The following imagery is a guy that's holding a sign up of how far he is away.
On the left is a close up of him, and on the right is the actual view of him from that distance.
100 feet
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geograp...ent/w01_100.jpg

250 feet
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geograp...ent/w02_250.jpg

500 feet
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geograp...ent/w03_500.jpg

1000 feet
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/geograp...nt/w04_1000.jpg


And you have to move that last distance in one second (or be capable of doing so) for you to move faster than ultrasound would pick you up.
As far as people go...that's just not going to happen.

You can't even get thrown objects to move faster than that.
Bullets are about the only things, but hell...even sighted folks have it hard against those things.

Arrows aren't even faster than you would be able to "see"; compounds can travel around 300 feet per second, and regular bows are around 170-190 feet per second.


But it's ultimately about speed of frequency and your brain's visual processing capacity and acumen...not really the speed of sound.
Human brains clock around 60Hz a second on average (slightly higher among some forms of depression and mania status brains).

And for frequency, our idea of sound (including our idea of the speed of sound on a day to day level...like the car door that we see close across the parking lot and then hear the sound of fraction of a second after) is based on a 15 to 18000Hz frequency level on average.

A bat, however, is running on around 80,000Hz+

So, if we just slap ultrasound onto someone that didn't mutate into having it, then it would be running pretty crappy with around a 78-99% decrease in cyclic rate of resolution.


QUOTE
I guess it is a complimation of all these problems. A slight lag, unused to the vision, and various other small problems. I suppose this is something along the lines of why thermographic vision has a bit of problem in complete darkness (as I recall), that and a mechanical standpoint of not wanting one type of vision to be perfect in all situations.

Well...that all depends, I think, on what we're talking about.

But tech-wise, I would say it's well enough accurate representation in SR.
Natural versions in metahumanity...no idea, like I said above...I can only guess because the human hearing range isn't tailored for something like that and neither are our brain's processors...it's hard to imagine a human-like being that runs fairly alien to how humans run...visual complemented by audio, rather than audio for sight.

I'm not even sure such a "human" mutation would inherently have a talking capable tongue.
It wouldn't have much use sense sound is being used for sight and not talking...talking would be better done in high frequency pitch shifts that create visual patterns for communication.

So yeah ... big question mark on that natural version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brazilian_Shinob...
post Nov 26 2009, 08:17 PM
Post #30


Shooting Target
****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 28-July 09
From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast
Member No.: 17,437



QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Nov 26 2009, 04:22 PM) *
The classic images of prenatal ultrasounds are primitive compared to current technology, not to mention by 2070 technology levels. We've had diagnostic prenatal ultrasound for about 40 years, with only changes in resolution. The amount of detail that you can get from current ultrasound images is pretty amazing. It's the lack of color cues and artifcating that is disconcerting. I imagine that by 2070, the overlay will also have a "predicted" color or various color schemes (like current colorization techniques used in movies today... see the wikipedia article on film colorization for details).


Ok, my bad, I should have mentioned SOTA prenatal ultrasounds devices. I've seen one of them and they already have a fine resolution, but then again, those devices work like a "beam" showing just a small image. If you put that into an actual vision, things could get complicated, as you would be capable to see inside people as well. Also, I think that ultrasound vision and echolocation work on different principles, don't they?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Nov 26 2009, 08:57 PM
Post #31


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Nov 26 2009, 03:17 PM) *
Ok, my bad, I should have mentioned SOTA prenatal ultrasounds devices. I've seen one of them and they already have a fine resolution, but then again, those devices work like a "beam" showing just a small image. If you put that into an actual vision, things could get complicated, as you would be capable to see inside people as well. Also, I think that ultrasound vision and echolocation work on different principles, don't they?
I beg your pardon, but if it's a "beam" showing a small image, then you have not seen one of the state of the art ones. You've seen a recent consumer model version of the traditional diagnostic prenatal ultrasound machines. It's superior to the ones that were built in the 60s obviously, but works on similar/same principles. Diagnostic ultrasound used to see prenatal images is different from ultrasound used as a visual overlay or producing images. For one thing, the range is a lot farther, and it's not used to look "inside" an object. Even then, diagnostic ultrasound for prenatal images has recently come a LONG way and can create images of the whole contents of the uterus in one pass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Byte
post Nov 27 2009, 01:18 AM
Post #32


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Joined: 16-March 05
From: 51° 16' North 7° 11' East
Member No.: 7,168



QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 26 2009, 08:42 PM) *
A common fly flies around at 4.5 miles per hour.
The speed of sound is 761 mph.
The average rifle round speed is a little more than 2,000 mph.
Boxer's/MMA/Martial Arts punching speeds can reach around 20 to 30 mph.

So really...you're only lag here is something around 761 miles per hour.
There's really no lag aside from that.


Wrong approach. I was speaking of targets more than 170 meters away. The sound needs about 0.5 seconds to get there and 0.5 seconds to get back. A professional sprinter can run more than 10 m/s. Even an untrained person will be several meters away from the spot the display's showing him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dahrken
post Nov 27 2009, 06:31 AM
Post #33


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 583
Joined: 1-October 09
From: France
Member No.: 17,693



QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Nov 26 2009, 09:17 PM) *
Ok, my bad, I should have mentioned SOTA prenatal ultrasounds devices. I've seen one of them and they already have a fine resolution, but then again, those devices work like a "beam" showing just a small image. If you put that into an actual vision, things could get complicated, as you would be capable to see inside people as well.

You can see what's inside a person with echography because the emitter/recevier is touching the body. It won't work that way with ultrasound sight because the sound waves will bounce on the air/body interface (different densities).

Ultrasound sights have a significant drawback : it is an active sensor, and as such it can be detected (with the proper sensor) farther than it can detect something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 27 2009, 08:24 AM
Post #34


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



QUOTE (Doc Byte @ Nov 27 2009, 02:18 AM) *
Wrong approach. I was speaking of targets more than 170 meters away. The sound needs about 0.5 seconds to get there and 0.5 seconds to get back. A professional sprinter can run more than 10 m/s. Even an untrained person will be several meters away from the spot the display's showing him.

So...you're saying there's a problem of someone running at me when it will take 17 seconds for them to reach me?

Bats (as a species) can fly up to speeds of around 60mph...that's 26 m/s (almost 27).
Now...that's much faster than the sprinting 10m/s person; actually...it's 160% faster.

So...if echolocation was so poor at fast moving objects, then how do we explain bats flying so fast that they would cross the 170 meter distance 11 seconds faster than the runner without smashing into things while doing this?

It's because they have shifting pulses.
Their Hz rates change dependent on which click type they are using, and visa verse.

They have one for widely sweeping the area, they have one for close range, and one for constant pulsing in general or average Hz.
Basically...the difference is like our vision of taking in an entire view (opening the peripheral), looking in our focal length, or just our general sight while doing things like walking.

A bat, for instance, can increase to roughly one click pair every 30ms.
The full Hz range is between 20Hz up the previously mentioned 80kHz.

That means that with the man running 10m/s idea, the bat would track him every 0.3 m/30ms.

This is because you don't just start sending a pulse only when something starts moving...you are always sending pulses, so when something is there (like a man waiting to run at you from 170meters), you already get that info and if the next time you see them in ultrasound is at 80 meters for some odd reason, then you'll shift to a higher frequency and faster pulse rate to catch up to the speed of the runner.

This is what bats do.
It's not about traveling faster than the speed of sound (or rather, not really), it's about putting the waves out before an object reaches the predicted area they will be in, that way they will hit one of the waves and bounce it back as they approach (or the opposite).

This creates a system by which each new identifier wave fuels a switch to a new click rate and higher frequency as one gets closer to the object, and lower click rate with a lower frequency as one gets farther from the object.

This is also because lower frequency maintains stability at longer ranges better than higher frequency, and higher frequency moves faster than lower frequency at a more rapid succession (meaning, more data feedback).


Now...if we're talking about ultrasound goggles...then if the goggles don't try to imitate this volatile pulse and frequency concept that bats use, then yes indeed...what you are talking about would pose some problems.

So...in a sense...I suppose one could say while the natural version would most likely have lower resolution than the technological version, the amount of object information would be greater and more accurate than the technological version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dahrken
post Nov 27 2009, 08:53 AM
Post #35


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 583
Joined: 1-October 09
From: France
Member No.: 17,693



QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 27 2009, 09:24 AM) *
So...you're saying there's a problem of someone running at me when it will take 17 seconds for them to reach me?

My understanding is that he was saying that echolocation is poor for having an accurate position on a distant moving object. The closer something gets, the smaller the lag gets, to the point of being negligible.

A bat gets fine with that because it needs to be really accurate when things are close to it (an insect to catch, a predator to dodge, a wall to land, an opening to fly through...). At longer ranges the inaccuracy created by the return time doesn't matter because a general perception is all what the bat needs.

But we human sometimes need more : imagine trying to shoot a a gun out of tha hand of a guy 100 m away with only ultrasound sighting : you "see" the target not where it is, but where it was 0.3 seconds before, making accurate placement of a bullet a matter of luck as much as skill.

You can probably also get some speed information through Doppler effect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3278
post Nov 27 2009, 09:22 AM
Post #36


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 983
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 326



An excellent treatment of echolocation for the layman is available in the second chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, available through the miracle of the internets here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Nov 27 2009, 11:10 AM
Post #37


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



QUOTE (Dahrken @ Nov 27 2009, 03:53 AM) *
But we human sometimes need more : imagine trying to shoot a a gun out of tha hand of a guy 100 m away with only ultrasound sighting : you "see" the target not where it is, but where it was 0.3 seconds before, making accurate placement of a bullet a matter of luck as much as skill.


This.

I suppose if you really want to account for the penalty in a more realistic manner, you'd apply the distance penalty at 1/5 or 1/10 the normal distance (eg. instead of -1 at 300 meters, you're looking at -1 at 30 meters).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Byte
post Nov 27 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #38


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Joined: 16-March 05
From: 51° 16' North 7° 11' East
Member No.: 7,168



QUOTE (Dahrken @ Nov 27 2009, 09:53 AM) *
But we human sometimes need more : imagine trying to shoot a a gun out of tha hand of a guy 100 m away with only ultrasound sighting : you "see" the target not where it is, but where it was 0.3 seconds before, making accurate placement of a bullet a matter of luck as much as skill.


Of course wide bursts will enhance your luck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) But yes, that's my point.

QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 27 2009, 09:24 AM) *
So...you're saying there's a problem of someone running at me when it will take 17 seconds for them to reach me?


Actually I'm saying there's a problem aiming a gun at a moving target that stays constantly ahead of where your display's showing it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
etherial
post Nov 27 2009, 07:30 PM
Post #39


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 21-November 09
Member No.: 17,891



QUOTE (Draco18s @ Nov 27 2009, 06:10 AM) *
This.

I suppose if you really want to account for the penalty in a more realistic manner, you'd apply the distance penalty at 1/5 or 1/10 the normal distance (eg. instead of -1 at 300 meters, you're looking at -1 at 30 meters).


Or just have them roll using Intuition instead of Agility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 27 2009, 08:06 PM
Post #40


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



QUOTE (Dahrken @ Nov 27 2009, 09:53 AM) *
My understanding is that he was saying that echolocation is poor for having an accurate position on a distant moving object. The closer something gets, the smaller the lag gets, to the point of being negligible.

A bat gets fine with that because it needs to be really accurate when things are close to it (an insect to catch, a predator to dodge, a wall to land, an opening to fly through...). At longer ranges the inaccuracy created by the return time doesn't matter because a general perception is all what the bat needs.

But we human sometimes need more : imagine trying to shoot a a gun out of tha hand of a guy 100 m away with only ultrasound sighting : you "see" the target not where it is, but where it was 0.3 seconds before, making accurate placement of a bullet a matter of luck as much as skill.

You can probably also get some speed information through Doppler effect.


QUOTE (Doc Byte @ Nov 27 2009, 05:09 PM) *
Actually I'm saying there's a problem aiming a gun at a moving target that stays constantly ahead of where your display's showing it.


Ah...I wasn't thinking outside of the box there.
Gotchya.

In that case, yeah, natural based ultrasound would probably have some serious issues.
I'm not aware of any echolocation animals on the planet that even play with object trajectory.

In this kind of situation, it would be more advantageous to have technological based ultrasound. Then it could help overcome this difficulty by computing, and displaying corrective measures for aiming. But it would be a piece of technology made for normally sighted people.


That's something else I didn't bring up earlier that would definitely impact things like shooting; naturally developed ultrasound wouldn't necessarily output to a sighted display at all. Instead it would just require information to be ideogramed and translated into an array of vibrational occurrences.

Essentially, there's no guarantee they would even be capable of shooting something 10 feet in front of them as their senses aren't developed for object trajectory of those purposes.
It's developed for things as they relate to their body and it's speeds.

So overall, they would probably make lousy shots, and horrible throwing sports players.
They would be better at melee than shooting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Nov 27 2009, 08:18 PM
Post #41


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



On the other hand, we don't know if the software portion of the ultrasound sensor compensates for all this in some way. Maybe there's a doppler ghost that is superimposed on the overlay, or maybe it just automatically adjusts the images based on predicted values. A large part of the reason that echolocation works for bats (or binocular vision in humans, for that matter) is that their brains do a lot of post-processing to the "images".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tachi
post Nov 27 2009, 09:47 PM
Post #42


Moving Target
**

Group: Validating
Posts: 664
Joined: 7-October 08
From: South-western UCAS border...
Member No.: 16,449



Aren't the ultrasound 'visual' penalties for smoke/fog/rain? Not actual light differences? I dunno, fog and rain do tend to distort/dampen/absorb sound. I haven't spent enough time in buildings/areas full of smoke to know if it does the same, but, I thought the penalties were for sound diffusion/loss.

The distance penalties you all have discussed do make sense though.

Edit:
Hmm. Just looked, you do get penalties for darkness/partial light. That makes no sense to me. Yeah, must be the lack of corresponding visual picture to overlay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brazilian_Shinob...
post Nov 28 2009, 12:38 AM
Post #43


Shooting Target
****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 28-July 09
From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast
Member No.: 17,437



QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 27 2009, 05:06 PM) *
In that case, yeah, natural based ultrasound would probably have some serious issues.
I'm not aware of any echolocation animals on the planet that even play with object trajectory.


I don't know if I understood correctly what you meant, but animals are capable of "calculating object trajectory. If you take a look at Fundamentals of Physics, volume 2, 6th ed. by Halliday, Resnick and Walker, chapters 17 and 18 both show ho scorpions and bats hunt using sound to locate their preys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Nov 28 2009, 01:12 AM
Post #44


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



Bats have to send out 200 pings a second in order to actually catch their prey, and at a decreasing amount of sound energy (i.e. the buzz doesn't travel as far). That's a pretty large amount of data for determine a close range "collision."

There's no way you could use ultrasound "vision" at that high of a frequency in order to view targets out beyond a few meters.

Searching for prey, bats ping around 10-20 times a second, which is enough to locate a direction in which to travel in order to "close distance" with the target and use the higher frequency buzz necessary for catching the insect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 28 2009, 02:43 AM
Post #45


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



QUOTE (Brazilian_Shinobi @ Nov 28 2009, 12:38 AM) *
I don't know if I understood correctly what you meant, but animals are capable of "calculating object trajectory. If you take a look at Fundamentals of Physics, volume 2, 6th ed. by Halliday, Resnick and Walker, chapters 17 and 18 both show ho scorpions and bats hunt using sound to locate their preys.

Yeah, that's not what I meant.

Object trajectory play is like throwing a ball, rolling a ball to another, or catching the same.
I'm not aware of behavior in bats that shows that they have the ability to track predicted trajectory like we do when we throw something to someone else.

I bring that in because it's similar to shooting at something...the bullet has nothing to do with you physically and is it's own object that will not be with you when it reaches the target.

This is highly different than tracking a prey with sound.




Draco18s;
If you scan back a bit through the thread, you'll see a couple large posts on my part that go through a decent depth of bat statistics, of which, the ones you are accounting for are cited.

That 200 clicks should be noted as only when they are close to their prey...it's not constant, and that's key.
Look back some where I talk about the three categories of frequency and click count that bats use for various range and purposes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 28 2009, 06:29 AM
Post #46


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Consider this.

If ultrasound imaging was the bee's knees, why isn't it used more often today? Especially by the military. Instead we only ever really see it as pretty shoddy imaging with sonar or for looking inside an expecting mother. I imagine it'd be really easy to defeat if it ever became popular, too. All you would have to do is learn what frequency or frequencies the enemy is using, then spend a buck fifty on a transmitter that throws out random noise at the same frequencies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 28 2009, 06:38 AM
Post #47


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 28 2009, 06:29 AM) *
Consider this.

If ultrasound imaging was the bee's knees, why isn't it used more often today? Especially by the military. Instead we only ever really see it as pretty shoddy imaging with sonar or for looking inside an expecting mother. I imagine it'd be really easy to defeat if it ever became popular, too. All you would have to do is learn what frequency or frequencies the enemy is using, then spend a buck fifty on a transmitter that throws out random noise at the same frequencies.

Yep.

I've commonly wondered why magicians don't counter by just this effect itself instead of making sound barriers.
It's far more simple and more effective to act like (can't remember the exact name) a particular fancy moth out there that emits a high frequency that's not even the same as the bat's..it's just high enough to screw the bat up by a large margin.

It's equal to a flashbang for ultrasound.
In fact...that would be a great counter measure in it's own right.

You could even have the ultrasound flashbang span multiple frequencies with multiple cyclic rates of pulsing's, just to make sure to catch as many people as possible.

On any frequency you can't hear, it would probably just sound a lot like a bug zapper ticking at varying speeds.
But to the affected, it would be a hellish experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 28 2009, 06:40 AM
Post #48


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Sound barriers are a little more useful than just defeating ultrasound. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 28 2009, 06:42 AM
Post #49


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 903
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



Oh well yeah, but I've seen plenty of mages just throw up sound barriers as a block to ultrasound, that's what I was saying.
It's easier to defeat ultrasound than they were making it...that's all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanadianWolverin...
post Nov 28 2009, 07:42 AM
Post #50


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 22-June 09
From: Ucluelet - Tofino - Nanaimo Salish-Sahide Council
Member No.: 17,309



I just watched this DailyPlanet show on Discovery that featured a story showing the trying to locate land mines, it stated and showed that metal detectors were less effective than sonar in detecting the objects in the ground that were potentially dangerous because the sonar could figure out the shape, distance to, and contents of the landmine.

Here is a link: http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/#clip240114

Considering that, wouldn't there be some really interesting uses for ultrasound in the SR world? Lets see what is in the walls or under people's clothes/in body cavities?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th May 2025 - 09:35 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.