5 ms·
In 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.
by carbocation 5y ago
In 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.