“The light under the drone was melted, and sensors were damaged from the extreme heat. He reports that the drone still works, but the vision sensor underneath no longer functions and gives constant errors during flights.“
> So I wonder how many drones this volcano has eaten so far?
to which the OP replies:
> Haha at least 2 that i know of...
which gets a response of:
> This one, and the one before this one where you forgot to hit the record button?
and the OP:
> Correct (:facepalm:)
Perhaps it's a good way to deal with our e-waste?
(edit) You said "ignoring the logistics" so I agree with the other commenter, the outgassing of the burning would be environmentally devastating. Lava doesn't instantly vaporize things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXJfg_JIUZA
I imaging the outgassing of the plastic would be pretty terrible but the volcanic gas is pretty damaging too. But yes, I imagine there are a hundred different reasons this wouldn't really work out.
Polypropylene and polyethylene do float, but don’t come near 0.05g/cm³. They’re closer to 0.9g/cm³ (https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/about-plastics/what-are-pl...). That’s close to icebergs.
Density of plastic: https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/propertie...
- Eyeballed at 1.2 g/cm^3
Plastic waste, lifetime: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782
- 6.3 megatonnes (2017)
6.3 Mt / (1.2 g/cm^3) = 5250000 (5.25 million) m^3 = 0.00525 km^3
You were right! My math was way off. Thanks for noticing. This is a great demonstration of peer review :)
> temperatures, 870 to 1,200 °C (1,400 to 2,200 °F), are used to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) halogenated and other refractory organics in hazardous wastes. Often auxiliary fuels are employed to initiate and sustain combustion. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins. Off gases and combustion residuals generally require treatment.
And lava is in the range of 700 °C to 1300 °C. So... that could work.
With regular waste incinerators, the issue is the treatment of the gas... which... well... they already have issues with - https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcani...
> I was recently asked by a fairly small and young human why we don't just throw a lot of our waste into volcanoes – specifically, into the ones that have lava lakes, like Hawaii's Kilauea or the Democratic Republic of Congo's Nyiragongo.
> It's certainly a question that deserves an answer. Well, sadly, that answer probably isn’t the one you’re hoping for. As I've explained in a previous Forbes piece, lava lakes are complex things. They're extremely hot, and can melt plenty of things, that's for sure. However, they can't melt everything, and humanity has invented plenty of materials that would simply float atop the surface.
Or is that nonsense as core is much much deeper and there is hardly any mixibg goin on between the layers?
There was absolutely no heat damage. I assume it's because we were in the heat for such a short time, and the air temperature was below freezing that day. Also, the drone flies pretty fast. Regardless, I was genuinely surprised that there was no damage.
If you like the linked video, you should see how it looked a night: instagram.com/icelandaerials
Can't imagine they get volcano-damaged drones into their lab very often!
flying a $1k toy into high temperatures is just an attempt at a stock fotog to get some footage and some publicity. science was nowhere near on the agenda. the guy runs a stock photo company specializing in aerials.
So, the $1k toy is actually being trialed around the world, just with more complex instrumentation. You can get closer without risking anyone, and you can make much more frequent measurements since it's so much cheaper. The biggest problem is the wind and turbulence (since volcanoes are mountains with a heat source, and almost nobody in the field is an experienced drone pilot).
I'm sure you can use a better camera, but I think in 2021, you definitely use unmanned drones.
(Especially Hawaiian and the Icelandic volcanoes are usually not that bad (unless the eruption is below a glacier, that's quite explosive).)
Not sure if we went directly over the crater, but either way, that's an eruption that has gone on for decades, and behaves in known ways.
The Iceland eruption is a few days fresh.
And then, safe just means nobody gets hurt. The volcano will eat some instrumentation anyway at some point, probably. They often do. Plus, the sulfuric acid plume emissions will damage your gear if you get caught in it.
The risks associated with being 5km away piloting a drone and in a helicopter full of people overhead is radically different.
I mean, I wouldn't have wanted to be only 5km away from Mt St Helens when It blew its top ~40 years ago, but that one had spent 6 weeks giving off 4 and 5 magnitude earthquake warnings...
I think there's be a huge range of volcanos where it'd be risky to overfly in a helicopter risking human life, but where it'd be perfectly safe and sensible to fly drones for fun/curiosity/commercial-stock-footage/education/some-possible-eventual-science-benefit. I mean the major reason _not_ to overfly sites with drones are entirely absent, there's nobody and nothing valuable to hit and nothing for a drone battery to set fire to if you crash one on a lava field...
User: "I lost my drone."
Mavic: "Ok here's a new one."
Its an overflow/drain/spillway in a dam lake
I am wondering why authorities are enable to either shut down these things, or sue the authors, or do something about it.