PROPOSAL TO (SANITIZED) FOR EVALUATION OF NOISELESS DRILLING METHODS AND DEVELOPMENT OF MOST PROMISING METHODS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 10, 2012
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: July 1, 1955
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
?
EVALUATION OF NOISELESS DRILLING METHODS
DEVELOPMENT OF MOST PROMISING METHOD
1 July 1955
_ ,~4g(3v
~v~ (o v ?Age 22 k~Y ?Y
-DRIP 1- Kv GLASS
JUST 2 Z E7 xY gRV .2 , /0 Afifl'ls till 10.2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
?
EVALUATION OF NOISELESS DRILLING METHODS
AND
DEVELOPMENT OF MOST PROMISING METHOD
I. PROBLEM: A drilling method is required that would permit the drilling
of ho ems in masonry walls without annoying occupants on the other side of
the wall or drawing attention to the fact that drilling is being done. Al-
though specifications have not been written, certain foreseen requirements
and desirable features of equipment and methods follow:
A. Walls that may be encountered may be of stone, brick, or cement.
B. Drilling depth may be as great as 30 inches.
C. Drilling noises should be inaudible on the wall opposite the side
on which the drilling is being done and scarcely audible at the drill-
ing location.
?
D. Drilling control must be such that there is absolutely no chance
of the hole going through the wall to the other side or giving any
indication on the other side that drilling is being done.
E. The. hole size is assumed to be 3/8 inch, although a larger access
could be obtained by combining a number of 3/8 inch holes.
F. Walls in question will be located in such places as hotels, apart-.
ment houses, and inhabited business establishments.
G. Power sources would be available, but electric power available would
be limited to that available from the usual convenience outlet.
H. Equipment should be light in weight, portable, and capable of being
transported to location by a single man in containers the size of ordi,
nary suitcases. One or more trips could be required to transport the
entire equipment.
I. Drilling time should be fairly rapid. An acceptable speed would
be possibly two to three hours for an access hole.
J. Litter and waste should not mar or in any way damage the floor or
wall on the drilling side except for the hole itself.
?
II. DISCUSSION: A number of drilling methods should be considered, evalu-
ated, and tried., before any attempt is made toward developing the equipment
and techniques of a workable system. As a preliminary approach to the prob-
lem, a number of methods offering promise are considered as follows:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
?
A. The Ultra-Sonic Drill: Sound waves above the audible range would be
concentrated in a small area on the wall to disintegrate the masonry
structure in that area.
a. Noise transmitted from the hole should be extremely small,
if not non-existent.
b. Very accurate control should be possible.
2. Possible drawbacks:
a. Power requirements excessive.
b. Size and weight of equipment undesirable.
?
0
B. The Ultra-Sonic Drill Combined with Chemical Solvents: Ultra-sonic
energy acts as a catalyst on a number of chemical rea- ions. It may be
very practical to use certain acids or corrosives in combination with or
alternately with ultra-sonic energy. The speed-up of the particular
chemical reaction might permit rapid controlled penetration of the masonry.
1. Attractive features:
a. Low noise emission.
b. Reduction in power requirement of ultra-sonic equipment.
2. Possible drawbacks:
a. Different chemicals could be required for different types
of masonry.
b. Hole size and depth control may be difficult.
c. Careless use of chemicals could damage wall, floor, or
furnishings of a room.
C. Heat: Certain types of masonry walls could possibly be drilled by
the application of extreme heat. A blowpipe in conjunction with a
candle-or gas flame could be used to apply such heat. The process could
be speeded up by the use of an oxygen jet. The size and depth of hole
for a particular wall material would determine the required oxygen.
Features thatwould have to be examined include:
1. Attractive features:
a. Equipment small in size and easily transported.
b. Burning should be low in noise output.
2. Possible drawbacks:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
a. System probably not effective on all types of walls.
?
b. Control near surface of other wall side may be difficult.
D. Heating and Coolin : For walls which include certain types of
igneous rock including some limestone and sandstone, formations can be
chipped away by methods similar to that used by the Indians in making
flint arrows; i.e., heating a point to a high temperature and then cool-
ing it rapidly with moisture or some other cooling agent. Alternate
cooling and heating will chip off small particles of stone.
1.
Attractive features:
a.
b.
Equipment small in size.
Method relatively noiseless.
2.
Possible drawbacks:
a. Method not applicable to all types of masonry.
b. Control probably would become more difficult as hole depth
increased.
c. Drilling would be relatively slow.
is
E. Electronic Arc: An electronic arc operating in the ultra-sonic area,
for instance., the ionophone, might provide a relatively silent means of
applying ultra-sonic energy and electronic heat at the same time.
1.
Attractive features:
a.
b.
Possible rapid drilling.
Relatively silent drilling.
2.
Possible drawbacks:
?
a. Equipment could be bulky.
b. Amount of power required excessive.
c. It might be difficult to keep the arc in contact with the
bottom of the hole as the wall is penetrated.
F. Slow Speed Drill: On certain types of stone, this probably would be
one of the most practical types of drilling. A multiple carboloy head
operating at very low speeds and small chip sizes should be extremely
silent. Of course, the driving motor would have to be encased so as to
deaden sound. It is possible that this method could be made effective
on all types of walls, though it is obvious that soft stones would offer
the greatest possibility of success.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
?
a. Equipment light and portable.
b. Method could be made relatively noiseless.
c. Power requirements small.
2. Possible drawbacks:
a. Method would work best on soft stones.
b. Considerable tine would be required to drill hole.
G. High Speed Drill: Sounds above 1,500 or 5,000 cycles are not readily
transmitted y masonry walls. If a high speed drill were used it should
not be difficult to keep the amplitude of these higher frequency sounds
down below the threshold of audibility on the other side of the wall.
Therefore, for this method to be successful, a drill point and driving
speed would have-'to be used that would keep the chipping rate above 5,000
cycles. As with the slow speed drill, the driving motor would have to be
encased in sound absorbing material.
1.
Attractive features:
?
a.
b.
c.
Equipment light and portable.
Power requirements small.
Cutting rate fast.
d.
Sounds below audible level on opposite side of wall.
2. Possible drawbacks:
a. Speed of drill would have to be very high -- possibly
unattainable.
b. Bit would become very hot -.. a method of cooling or
an: exchange of bits would be necessary.
c. Chances of detection would become greater as hole became deeper.
H. Abrasives in Air: Sand blasting is normally a rather noisy and dirty
method of erosion, but it may be practical to use this system with a
concentric type of unit for which the sand blasting unit is the center
tube operating at a velocity and with a particle size that would be rela-
tively soundless. The outside tube would be held at several atmospheres
pressure lower and would pass off spent abrasive and air.
1. Attractive features:
a. Should work on all types of walls.
b. Relatively noiseless.
?
-1-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
?
2. Possible drawbacks:
a. Slow cutting speed.
b. Equipment bulky.
I. Abrasives in Liquid: The use of abrasives in certain liquid carriers
or propellants is a relatively new method, but has been developed recently
for cutting in certain types of very hard materials. It appears practical
that such a system could be designed for the drilling problem at hand.
1.
Attractive features:
a.
b.
Hard materials cut easily and quickly.
Relatively noiseless cutting.
2.
Possible drawbacks:
?
a. Difficulty of keeping area surrounding drilling clean.
b. Large amount of abrasive material required for a given hole.
c. Seepage may prevent its use on porous types of material.
J. Liquid Forced into Rock Pores: Certain types of stone structures are
porous and wi absorb moisture to a*certain extent. It may be practical
for certain medium hard and hard stones to force some liquid under pres-
sure into*a limited area of the stone. This portion of the stone could
then be popped off by rapid applications of heat or cold.
1.
Attractive features:
a.
b.
Equipment small.
Method noiseless.
2.
Possible drawbacks:
i
a. Limited application.
b. Drilling rate slow.
c. Control for deep holes becomes difficult.
III. RESEARCH AND APPLICATION WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED: The work to be
accomplished to bMg about the best solution to The problem can best be
discussed in terms of three phases:
A. Phase I - Prelimina Investigation: As the most efficient start
on a pro em of this 'nd, some time should be devoted ht the beginning
of the project to examining the literature, checking with manufacturers,
and in some cases actually viewing equipment at the manufacturers plant.
This type of check would more clearly define advantages and possible
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
0
?
problems as discussed in Section II. No doubt, this preliminary investi-
gation would uncover new methods and eliminate some of the possibilities
mentioned'in Section II. Approximately one man-month should be used in
this manner. Part of this time would be spread over the entire project.
B. Phase II - Equipment Testing: This phase of the project would be
devoted to the actual testing of existing commercial equipments for all
methods appearing feasible from the preliminary investigation. Minor
modifications would be made on obtainable equipments to adapt them for
the special tests. Equipment for these tests would be borrowed.or rented
where practical and, if not practical, would be purchased.
The results of these tests would be evaluated and one or more methods
would be chosen for development. While it is possible that a single
method may answer all needs, it is likely that two or more methods may
be necessary to meet all conditions. Approximately four man-months would
be required on this phase of the project.
C. Phase III - Equipment Develo ent: The method or methods selected
in Phase II would be explored further and equipment developed for field
use. It is visualized that for the most part this work would involve
modifying and adapting commercially available parts and equipment.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: In summary proposes to: 25X1
A. Examine all possible solutions to the problem.
B. Make tests to determine the limitations of the best of most likely
methods.
C. Develop and deliver as a useable tool a complete set of field equip-
ment. This field equipment may involve one or more methods. It is
understandable that the final equipment may not answer all the desirable
features as set forth in the problem, but it will be the best possible
equipment obtainable within the scope of the project.
?
V. TINE AND COST ESTIMATES: The following cost estimate is based on a pro-
ject duration of one year rom the date of contract.
-6-
~ r ma n V 4 r, e% te3M
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
0
F. Total Cost of Project
$ 47,785.00
VI. CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS: I Ihas for a number
of years worke on methods o lling for the petroleum industry, having
examined a large number of different ideas in this field Recently, a brief
study of unorthodox machining methods has been made witt funds. The 25X1
Institute has the combined services of mechanical and materials engineers,
chemical engineers, and physicists needed to evaluate the variety of possible
problem solutions.
has ready access to geophysical, geological, and related data 25X1
?
developed by the petroleum industry, which should be most useful in phases of
the proposed work.
The close relationship of this project with the present Task 25X1
15 is obvious and considerable advantage could be gained by the close cooper-
ation and mutual development of these two projects.
W
CIO
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/10: CIA-RDP78-03172A000300050006-9