4 ms·
It says the prediction is accurate to 1.4cm, but it doesn’t say at what range. 1.4cm at 1km is great, but 1.4cm at 1m likely isn’t usable. I’m also curious wha
by jjcm 5y ago
It says the prediction is accurate to 1.4cm, but it doesn’t say at what range. 1.4cm at 1km is great, but 1.4cm at 1m likely isn’t usable.
I’m also curious what the failsafes are like for this - how will they prevent laser spillover or misfires from hitting eyes? Even if this is a 1 in a million chance, it likely isn’t worth it except in highly remote areas.
- carbocation 5y agoIn a flat area, you could imagine designing a system so that it couldn't aim below horizon, and then mount it 10-15 feet up to mitigate the risk of blinding.
- skykooler 5y agoThat sounds like a big risk to aircraft.
- TheDudeMan 5y agoHow long of a pulse is required to disable an insect? How long to be a danger to airplane pilots?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- robryk 5y agoAlso, can we get a laser that's collimated badly enough that the beam is ~harmless at distances where an aircraft can be, while still collimated well enough to fry the insect? (In the spirit of "the best radiation shield is r squared".)
- carbocation 5y agoThat's a good point.
- mwint 5y agoShouldn’t be too hard to pull FlightAware data or similar and just not ever shoot within n degrees of aircraft… if it was really much of a concern to start with. Big sky theory.
- tjohns 5y agoNot all aircraft broadcast ADS-B positions. And as a low-time pilot who’s been bit with laser beams from people’s Christmas decorations, I’d argue the big sky theory doesn’t apply here.
- xyzzyz 5y agoFlightAware doesn't show all airplanes that are flying, only ones with ADS-B receivers, which are not required.
- mhh__ 5y agoIf it has IR it should also be able to spot aircraft trails but either way if there is any risk of blinding a pilot then they should tread extremely lightly (or non-startup-ish, i.e. obvious potential for "move fast and kill people").
- kylehotchkiss 5y agoFlightaware’s api isn’t super cheap, that would add up if you’re calling the planes overhead API all day
- coolspot 5y agoAnd birds
- stubish 5y agoI think an aircraft flying 15 feet above ground is a big risk to your crops too.
- stavros 5y agoWhy is 1.4cm at 1km great? You still missed, so it's terrible at any range.
- coryrc 5y agoBecause that's only 1.4mm at 1m, which is very useful.
- stavros 5y agoIt doesn't necessarily work like that, it might be 1.4cm across its entire range.
- bottled_poe 5y agoThis doesn’t look right
- coryrc 5y agoI've been sick for a few weeks, you are right.
- numpad0 5y agoThe original article was published a month or so earlier, and sounded a bit like the angular resolution for whatever machine was already determined, and they worked their way back to suitable bugs and the use case, rather than having a specific issue in mind and designing the setup around.
- dr-ando 5y agoWhich original article? I would be interested to read it.
- numpad0 5y ago[1]. Upon re-reading this, they don't even have the actual laser rig, just a camera and a methodology to estimate future locations to compensate for [camera] latencies with accuracy that conveniently fits within average body sizes of specific spices of a bug. This is also funded by "Moonshot R&D Program" and its sub-programs[2][3] ran by the Cabinet Office of Government of Japan. Are you fluent in the language by chance? Because I might be able to explain how I came to post the above comment but it's hard, it just ... smells. 1: https://www.naro.go.jp/publicity_report/press/laboratory/nipp/144889.html https://www.naro.go.jp/publicity_report/press/laboratory/nip... 2: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/moonshot/index.html https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/moonshot/index.html 3: https://www.affrc.maff.go.jp/docs/moonshot/moonshot.html https://www.affrc.maff.go.jp/docs/moonshot/moonshot.html
- dr-ando 5y agoThanks. I was able to read [1] with the help of Google Translate. From what I understand, this is an announcement of the project being funded within the Moonshot program and thus it is expected that the capabilities discussed are the goal, not what the researchers have already demonstrated.