Ah, yes, the solution is to pay someone to do something . An extra 3.50 euro pet flight/passenger to avoid extra contrails, genius money making machine.
Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
161–170 of 206 posts
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
Most camera sensors already detect in the IR range, you just need to remove the filter. I've done it, works great and pretty fun to convert some old webcams, robot vacuums lidar scanners look especially cool. Blurry video is fine when using techniques like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE Clouds also don't save you (unless you have two thick layers to fly through) because this technique is even easie…
In visible range, would. The technique shown in the video work not perfectly clear sky conditions? Clouds are not uniform layer that moves with exactly the same speed in each point.
Are there reliable ways to figure out which pixels on subtracted frames are cloud movement and which are the few ones that are an aircraft?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but adding extra cameras doesn't seem to solve this problem, each source reporting "almost everything moves" would make solving intersections and tracking them impossible, because each target candidate can be assigned to many changes pixels in consecutive frames. Unless some additional pattern detection is done, but again it's hard for very small objects.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#163It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
Hrrm. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043 Furthermore https://duckduckgo.com/q=toxicologic+assessment+of+jet+fuel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fume_event Are the fumes less bad, when they don't leak into the cabin by bleed air, just blown away backwards? The solution to pollution is dilution (in the atmosphere)? With the current amount of global air traffic, no matter if civilian, or military?
But that's not chem-trails!
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems pretty useless in an age with super cheap 8k cameras and novice ability to do a delta-recorded image.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
Still making sounds. And usually not less than an A320. May be supersonic though. So even less time to adapt/react.
Anyway. Combine with microphone arrays, and your coverage is better.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#165One of the touted benefits of e-fuel is the purity that after combustion reduces the exhaust soot.
I wonder if factoring in the contrail reduction of this tilts them towards financial breakeven.
edit: Googled it and an Airbus test last year suggested a 25% decrease in contrail formation:
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-06-wo...
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of those attacks were successful? Russia has fairly advanced radar that is quite capable of picking up a plane like that. I think the more likely explanation is that it was incorrectly deemed not a threat or a minor threat. 700 miles is far more than the standard range of the A-20 (210nm). Is it possible they launched it from well within Russia thereby making it much less likely to be considered a threat?
Possible, just like Russel's teapot. But there has been one very well published Ukrainian attack launched from Russian soil[1]. If Ukraine had could regularly smuggle several drone aircraft's and explosives into Russia and launch them, we would be seeing a lot of other effects. Such as attacks on weapon production sites deep into Russia[2]. But yes, a lot of those attacks are probably unsuccessful. With my qualificat…
I also don't think they'll target the Yelabuga drone factory with a drone when they could use that drone on something relatively small but high value (like an aircraft) or combustible (like a refinery), and are waiting for their heavy cruise missles to come online for targets like factories. You can't do much damage to a factory with a drone. We've seen Ukraine target industrial sites with drones, but it's not common.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t understand conspiracy loon logic. By the very act of hiding the chemtrails you are demonstrating that you are doing something nefarious.
Plus, the invisibility of a thing does not stop the conspiracy loons from building conspiracies around it. 5G RF is invisible, yet still being used by the government to control our brains. For chemtrails, the conspiracy is just going to turn into: "They're spraying invisible chemicals all over us to turn us into communists." There's no end to it.
I enjoy the conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
Still making sounds. And usually not less than an A320. May be supersonic though. So even less time to adapt/react. Anyway. Combine with microphone arrays, and your coverage is better.
[deleted]
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
Most camera sensors already detect in the IR range, you just need to remove the filter. I've done it, works great and pretty fun to convert some old webcams, robot vacuums lidar scanners look especially cool. Blurry video is fine when using techniques like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE Clouds also don't save you (unless you have two thick layers to fly through) because this technique is even easie…
> Most camera sensors already detect in the IR range, you just need to remove the filter.
Yes, but no. "Infrared" is a very wide range, and you're talking about different things here.
"Just off the red end of the visible spectrum", aka near-IR is typically considered 700-1400nm, which is what your normal visible-spectrum camera becomes sensitive to when you pop off the filter. That's fun, and you'll find lots of cool things there. Remote controls use near-IR typically in 850nm, flowers often reflect vividly in this range too. Notably, near-IR passes through most materials that're clear in the visible spectrum, which is how bugs are able to have eyes that see it to locate those flowers. Also, plastics and glasses, so NIR-capable optics are cheap. (NIR windows are often dyed to look dark-purple or black to the visible spectrum, because these dyes are transparent to IR.)
However, "thermal infrared" is much longer -- rocket exhaust can be seen with a mediumwave-IR sensor in the 3000-8000nm range, but warm bodies only start to show up in longwave-IR, 8000-15000nm. Sensors for those are mindbogglingly harder to make than near-IR. And these wavelengths don't pass through normal materials. Plain old glass, for instance, is totally opaque to thermal wavelengths, so if you take a thermal picture (a thermograph) of a window, you don't see the warm bodies inside, but rather the temperature of the glass itself, combined with whatever outside objects are reflected off its surface -- it acts like a mirror, not a window.
This means making lenses for thermal cameras is also difficult and expensive. The materials are awful -- Zinc Selenide is one of the most common, despite being expensive and toxic so it's difficult to machine. Pure Germanium works, but it's even more expensive. Sodium Chloride is amusingly transparent to LWIR but it tends to dislike getting rained on.
Removing the hot-mirror from a visible-light camera is a neat party trick and does legitimately see into "the infrared", but that's not the same as thermal infrared, which does still require specialized equipment.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems pretty useless in an age with super cheap 8k cameras and novice ability to do a delta-recorded image.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
IR sensor based tracking has existed for decades [1]. But aircraft equipped with them still equipped radar systems because of their significantly longer range tracking capability. Optical has all the same downsides as IR tracking, on top of not working at night. It's like people forget that radar relies on the scanning aircraft to actively illuminate their targets with the radar emitter, where as optical systems rely on the sun to do that. Targets are at least partially self illuminating for IR trackers thanks to the hot jet engines.