3 ms·
Here is a live feed of the camera: https://cameras.alertcalifornia.org/ https://cameras.alertcalifornia.org/ Why did not they go with a simple approach: * Dev
by YeBanKo 3y ago
Here is a live feed of the camera:
https://cameras.alertcalifornia.org/ https://cameras.alertcalifornia.org/
Why did not they go with a simple approach:
* Device with a low power thermal sensor, cellular connection and a battery that sends a heart beat with the current temperature once every minute or so. Maybe even BLE mesh network of such sensors. Simple patterns like a sudden increase in the are or sensors going offline can indicate something is happening.
* Does it really need a live video? Time-lapse would require less traffic and energy. Many camera's seems to be attached to the existing poles or lines and potentially limiting coverage area.
* I think a modern approach for such projects should be: put streams from sensors of different types online + an archive of data and have it as an ongoing kaggle-like competition for the best approach with the condition that resulting model should be made available to CalFire for their own use.
- kaibee 3y ago> * Device with a low power thermal sensor, cellular connection and a battery that sends a heart beat with the current temperature once every minute or so. Maybe even BLE mesh network of such sensors. Simple patterns like a sudden increase in the are or sensors going offline can indicate something is happening. I'm not sure what is simple about needing to deploy orders of magnitude more devices to achieve similar levels of coverage...
- mikeyouse 3y agoBut a casual passerby spent 5 minutes thinking about a problem and uncovered a solution that the teams of domain experts missed in their years of dedicated work - surely there aren’t any downsides!
- YeBanKo 3y agoBecause it can be maintenance free, in the middle of nowhere and not rely on source of power and stable connection. https://www.dryad.net/wildfiresensor https://www.dryad.net/wildfiresensor - here is an example.
- iudqnolq 3y agoI've never done something like it but I'd assume there are lots and lots of gotchas with plans to deploy zero maintenance devices. It would make sense to me that nonzero, predictable, acceptable maintenance is better than a plan for zero maintenance which, if it fails, would leave you with more devices than you can possibly fix.