Can you 'fool' a proximity sensor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter B. Elliott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sensor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of 'fooling' or tricking proximity sensors, specifically those based on inductive loop designs, into not detecting metallic objects. Participants explore the principles of operation of these sensors and the feasibility of manipulating electromagnetic fields to achieve this goal.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if it is possible to make a metal object invisible to an inductive loop sensor by emitting a stronger electromagnetic field or canceling out the existing field.
  • Another participant asserts that while proximity sensors can fail, they are generally reliable unless physically abused or misaligned.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that creating a field that negates the sensor's detection is theoretically possible but practically very difficult due to the sensor's sensitivity and accuracy.
  • One participant clarifies that inductive loop traffic sensors operate using an AC signal rather than the Earth's magnetic field, proposing that it is feasible to design a circuit that compensates for the metal object's signal.
  • Another participant mentions that there are various types of sensors, including those that detect variations in the Earth's magnetic field, and suggests that advancements in sensor technology may render older AC loop designs obsolete.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanisms and reliability of various sensor types, with no consensus reached on the feasibility of 'fooling' inductive loop sensors. Some participants agree on the principles of operation, while others present competing models and technologies.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the specific conditions under which sensors operate and the limitations of the proposed methods to manipulate electromagnetic fields. The discussion also highlights the evolving nature of sensor technology.

B. Elliott
Messages
264
Reaction score
10
I own a small one that that can detect metallic objects. Automotive use. I believe most (if not all) are based off of an inductive loop design. Anyway, I was playing around with it and a some coins and the question popped into my head...

Is it possible to 'trick' an inductive loop into not being able to detect or see a metal object?Brett
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Not clear, what you mean by fool. Proximity sensors of all sorts can fail, but for the most part they are extremely reliable. They only fail if physically abused or become mechanially mis aligned.
 
Integral said:
Not clear, what you mean by fool. Proximity sensors of all sorts can fail, but for the most part they are extremely reliable. They only fail if physically abused or become mechanially mis aligned.

Sorry for not being very clear. What I mean by 'fool' would be to make the the metal object invisible to the proximity sensor. Since they operate by detecting a change in the electromagnetic field that they produce, could they possibly be 'fooled' if you were to somehow emit a stronger field? Or maybe cancel out the field in some way?
 
Last edited:
not easily done.

Probably not, sensors which are based on Earth's magnetic field changes like traffic sensors, are hard to pass, anything that affects into a field may trigger the sensor. Even if trying to jam the field with an another field would be very difficult as you don't know the reference level. In theory, you might have a chance to create a field which is negative to that field that is affecting to a sensor, creating a +- zero situation to a sensor "sight". But as i said, that is nearly impossible, sensors are very accurate and sensitive.
But if you are not affecting into a sensor you may pass it. In traffic, someone told that a motorbike or a sports cars done with a carbon fibres could pass those sensors.
 
TechSpec said:
Probably not, sensors which are based on Earth's magnetic field changes like traffic sensors, are hard to pass, anything that affects into a field may trigger the sensor.

That's not true, TechSpec. That's not how inductive loop traffic sensors work. They use an AC signal, not the Earth's magnetic field.

And to the original question, yes, you can make a circuit that would actively pick up the detector signal and emit a signal that compensated for the metal object. There are some limitations in terms of sizes and geometries, naturally.
 
different type of detection

Berkeman, i agree, AC loops won't work with Earth's magnetic field. However, there are different types of sensors available like Honeywell. They have sensors to detect vehicles with a different principle of detection. They are based on Earth's magnetic field variations caused by a vehicle near to it.
You may read about them from here:
http://www.ssec.honeywell.com/magnetic/datasheets/an218.pdf

As the sensor technology has inproved the last few years rapidly, and making them easier and cheaper than the "old technology", i assume that AC loops may be a history in a while... who knows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TechSpec said:
Berkeman, i agree, AC loops won't work with Earth's magnetic field. However, there are different types of sensors available like Honeywell. They have sensors to detect vehicles with a different principle of detection. They are based on Earth's magnetic field variations caused by a vehicle near to it.
You may read about them from here:
http://www.ssec.honeywell.com/magnetic/datasheets/an218.pdf

As the sensor technology has inproved the last few years rapidly, and making them easier and cheaper than the "old technology", i assume that AC loops may be a history in a while... who knows.

I'll be darned! I hadn't heard about this technology, TechSpec. Thanks for the info -- I learn something new every day! :blushing:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
992
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
621
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K