The music of the Ainur


computing power goes in the prototype. We tackle the fundamental difficult chemistry and physics to get it to work; what it looks like, if it shows you a spectrum or just a green light, those kinds of details are beyond the level we take prototype to.” Dr DeWitt stated that things were


going well in phase one of Maeglin, and that there would be a further BAA for phase two in March. It’s still a little early to decide exactly what will be in stage two, as Dr DeWitt stated. “An integrated Maeglin prototype that does the collection, separation and analysis would be in the 2019/2020 range, a second 18 month phase. Phase one, the component development, will have a government workshop in the spring and show people what we have in terms of component development. There are a lot of potential mission partner applications that don’t need the full collection, separation and analysis, they are looking for a screening tool, so you might be happy with just collection and separation. There are a lot of potential applications that might be interested in components of phase one, so we are planning to socialise all the data that is coming off the test bed for any mission partner that is interested in directly transitioning things out of phase one.” Even though this is the high risk


end of the research spectrum the list of agents is still vast and includes some exotics. It would seem to make sense, so that some success can be announced, to have a bit of a downselect on phase two, to try and have elements that are achievable based on phase one. Dr DeWitt stated that wasn’t the plan. They would have a warts and all approach to the agents, and partners could see what worked well, or didn’t, and then choose what they wanted to take forward. “Part of the reason that we have a broad chemical list and a lot of different agents in both programmes is that that challenges the systems.“ “A lot of paths you can take are only


for a minimal list of agents. We are trying to build tools that are more chemically agnostic and can be used in a range of situations. You would need to change the library to work in a certain situation but you wouldn’t have to go


back to square one, so we will probably retain a broad chemical analysis that pushes them in terms of developing algorithms and a robust system. Field applications would have a more tailored set and you can scale back and do something easier. We won’t do that in our demonstration because it allows the performers to go in one direction, which is easier but leaves the other part of the problem that you can’t address. We are looking for a broad utility and building a tool kit where mission partners can pick what they need, rather than specialising and building multiple flavours of ‘this can do this, but not that’.” As a bit of relief for the various


Maeglin phase one organisations, while the chemical range is vast the form of the agent is more straightforward. “Maeglin is only working on the gas phase of aerosol compounds as they have to get into the device. We are looking at a gas phase sampler and pre- concentrator approach, so the gas chromatography (GC) columns and mass spectrometry (MS) we have built would be amenable with other ways of introducing the sample: wipes on surfaces or thermal desorption. It doesn’t rule out that sort of application against different targets but we are not requiring them to build that front end as the way to get those compounds into a gas phase form is known science.” Due to limitations of time and space


it is difficult to get into all the nooks and crannies of the three ‘thrust’ areas in Maeglins, collection, separation and identification, but Ms DeWitt is most proud of the identification piece. “Getting the identification piece in a field portable low power format and still be able to do lab identification is what I will be most proud of. Some GC systems have been made small but they lose resolution, so you lack absolute compound identification. Also the power levels for an unattended sensor over an extended period of time [present challenges]. Most existing systems, even if they’re person portable must be plugged in every eight hours. Those will be the biggest challenges.“ “The GC columns are probably the


easiest part, although getting those small and leak tight and still being able


to work with air as a carrier gas, rather than a cylinder of helium or hydrogen, is a challenge, but it is not as scary. The collection systems are much more established science, the challenge is being able to cycle multiple times without having to replace the sorbent media. That becomes a challenge for field reliability if you are not using carrier gases, and heating and desorbing multiple times poisons your sorbent. So they all have challenges, but identification is probably the hardest.” Silmarils, on the other hand, has


more BAA phases, three rather than two but all phases were solicited in the original BAA. The team started off with given contractors, but are now getting ready to decide whether they want to take forward one or two. Probably one of the greatest challenges they face is being able to provide an eye safe, active laser that can pick out minute amounts of target from a vast array of clutter. Ms DeWitt outlined her top challenge in the programme. “The most difficult part of Silmarils is the trace solids on surfaces. There is a lot of difference in the signature morphology depending on particles sizes and the state of matter, etc. If you can get trace solids on surfaces your system can pretty much get liquids and gases for free as long as they are in the library. We are testing against liquids and gases, just to be able to let our partners know how it tests against those, because if you are already doing trace surface it is a much simpler problem.” Usually one of the ways to reduce


this challenge is to decrease the distance, allowing more power to be focussed. Many standoff identifiers work on low metre/high centimetre ranges (as opposed to detectors that are in low kilometres), yet Silmarils is looking at adding an order of magnitude to this. Was there a chance of a compromise, where there could be low centimetres for some agents or states, and the 30m range for some agents that stand out from clutter, for example? Ms DeWitt stated that there was some flexibility. “We are testing between five and


30m for all sample types, but we have done some tests at shorter range where we showed we can get higher sensibility.


CBRNe Convergence, Orlando, USA, 6-8 November 2018 www.cbrneworld.com/convergence2018 16 CBRNe WORLD February 2018 www.cbrneworld.com


CBRNeWORLD


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68