3 ms·
>Both of these produce lots of smoke. i suggest you view a bunch of real IR footage. > Neither can be doused by drones. I'm pretty sure 20 tons of water woul
by trhway 2y ago
>Both of these produce lots of smoke.
i suggest you view a bunch of real IR footage.
> Neither can be doused by drones.
I'm pretty sure 20 tons of water would douse a house fire. It would take 10 flights of an F8F Bearcat sized drone. Though the F8F is an overkill built for speed. One can carry 1-2 ton with much simpler plane today for that purpose.
An acre size fire - an acre-inch of water is 100 ton. So 10 drones 10 flights at 1 ton/drone.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> suggest you view a bunch of real IR footage For what? I’m familiar with very sensitive IR systems. I’m struggling to see the advantage of having them on drones versus satellites, particularly if the threshold is an entire house is on fire.
- trhway 2y ago>I’m struggling to see the advantage of having them on drones versus satellites An IR camera on drone can be fine-grain controlled from the ground when needed - say zoom-in from a 100km on something detected in the sweep like even a camp-fire so you can confirm whether it is a starting wildfire or just a camp-fire - that of course requires hardware like on those pricey military drones, yet it is still a pocket change in this context. You can also much easily reroute the drone. Again, if you watch the drone war footage there is a lot of scenarios where satellite wouldn't work.