Competition

We consider Atometry and our “stoichiometric” measurement technique to be “disruptive” technologies. This is due to their unique and differentiating characteristics in addition to the material benefits that can be achieved in their application in terms of safety factor, efficiency, flexibility and accuracy.

Our Atometers are best categorized as part of a new class of non-invasive, chemical-specific, “confirmatory” sensors that can not only detect and identify threat materials, but also reliably discriminate innocuous objects from actual threats. While there are other companies pursuing the research and development of mobile systems utilizing similar techniques, to our knowledge, there are currently no commercial portable or mobile fast-neutron products available in the marketplace, let alone deployed and demonstrated as reliable. In effect, our solutions are “sole source” qualified.

Our Atometers do not fall in the crowded field of “primary” detectors, such as widely used EDS (explosives detection systems) employing X-rays or millimeter waves, which are “chemically blind”. These primary systems, including the newer backscatter and dual-energy variants, rely on the subjective interpretation by the operator of one or two characteristics, such as density or shape, which makes them heavily dependent on further inspection in order to resolve any detected anomaly. As a consequence, these “primary” detectors result in a high rate of false negative alarms or “misses” that can create a very false sense of security and lead to disastrous consequences.

Our Atometers also do not compete with hand held “sniffers”, “vapor tracers” or other sampling methods, including bomb sniffing dogs. While sometimes touted as “confirmatory”, these systems lack the volume selectivity necessary to discriminate inconsequential traces from the bulk quantities that would represent an actual danger. Due to their high sensitivity, these detection techniques are also highly susceptible to environmental interference and suffer from high rates of false positives which trigger inappropriate and wasteful mobilizations of resources and costly interruptions of operations. Lastly, these techniques are generally invasive and/or require the operator to physically manipulate the suspect target, thereby putting the operator in harm’s way.

3.jpg