[HN Gopher] Optical tracking and laser-induced mortality of inse...
___________________________________________________________________
Optical tracking and laser-induced mortality of insects during
flight
Author : elsewhen
Score : 98 points
Date : 2020-10-17 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| zarkov99 wrote:
| God bless scientists. We might not have flying cars yet but this
| is almost as good.
| chaganated wrote:
| Interesting subject, but the experiment is a rube-goldberg mess--
| a cartesian product of frequencies, intensities, durations, and a
| rather complex targeting system.
|
| Not looking forward to the same kind of rig being attached to
| high-power lasers, and pointed at civilians.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Not that I think there aren't governments and other
| organizations willing to do that, but it has been proven time
| and again that chemical explosives (e.g. gunpowder) is just
| hard to beat for killing efficiency. In other words, anyone
| willing to do that, would probably be willing to just shoot
| them with a bullet or drop a bomb on them, and that would
| always be cheaper.
| chaganated wrote:
| explosives don't really jive with the social credit system's
| API
| hyperion2010 wrote:
| Solid work, but I find it quite concerning that there appears to
| be no discussion of potential false positive detections of other
| species beyond those specifically targeted. The research is still
| in a very early phase, and `wing-beat frequency, and/or other
| factors` means they are thinking about it a bit. If I deploy one
| of these I want to know how many friendly or benign insects I'm
| going to be killing.
| TooSmugToFail wrote:
| They are not "thinking about it a bit", their earlier work was
| concerned with precisely identifying the species and gender of
| the mosquito.
|
| I believe this system can very accurately ID and neutralize an
| exact specie of a mosquito.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| True that, but if a system of this sort is not used, I think in
| reality it would not be the case that nothing would be used,
| but rather that very broad-spectrum insecticides get used.
| That's what happens now. So even a somewhat-targeted method
| would be a big improvement over what happens now.
| sleavey wrote:
| "the visible wavelengths required significantly lower laser
| exposure than near infrared wavelengths to disable subjects,
| though near infrared sources remain attractive given their cost
| and retina safety"
|
| The paper repeatedly claims near infrared laser light to be
| "retina safe" (quotes theirs) which is an oversimplification.
| Infrared light of wavelength around 1 um in sufficient powers is
| very dangerous for the retina, especially compared to visible
| light where the blink reflex can save damage by lasers up to a
| point. Telecom wavelengths around 1.5 um happen to be safer
| because such light gets absorbed in the cornea before being
| focused onto the retina, but at sufficient powers or longer
| wavelengths (e.g. 3 um) where the absorption depth in the cornea
| gets very short there can instead be damage to that part of the
| eye. It's always the combination of the wavelength, which
| determines the absorptivity in the different parts of the eye,
| and incident energy (pulse duration x power), that determines the
| safety; there are no innately safe wavelengths close to that part
| of the spectrum.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| Maybe the best would be to mix a weak visible laser with a more
| powerful near-infrared laser, so that you make people blink,
| and your more powerful laser is less harmful? You could even
| trigger the visible "warning" laser 5-20ms before you fire the
| killer laser.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Blink reflex time is quite a lot longer than 25ms.
| analog31 wrote:
| Some powerful laboratory IR lasers come with a built-in
| visible tracer laser. Mainly, it's useful for aligning all of
| the optics. With the IR laser enabled, I'm still wearing my
| safety goggles.
| [deleted]
| lbj wrote:
| How did you come by this knowledge?
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| It's basic biophysics.
| oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
| You didn't really answer the question.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Sure he did. Read biophysics textbooks I guess is a more
| direct answer?
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| Sometimes hacker news people finds it shocking that you
| can can an education from places other than blog posts on
| Medium and Substack.
| sleavey wrote:
| I work with these lasers every day. This seems to be a decent
| write-up: [1].
|
| [1] https://www.rp-photonics.com/eye_safe_lasers.html
| lbj wrote:
| Ah I see, thanks!
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Well if the laser is used for pest control in agriculture, then
| the solution could be as simple as a fence, making sure that no
| humans are around.
| inamberclad wrote:
| Seconded. I'm working with an IR laser rangefinder for work
| that can blind people out to several km with the right optics
| in front.
| ncmncm wrote:
| They don't seem to know that there is a specific optical
| wavelength that dissociates chitin via a mechanism not dependent
| on heating. It seems like much shorter or less focused exposures
| should suffice at such a wavelength.
|
| In particular, a mosquito whose wings are shredded does not need
| to be (also) killed to be eliminated as a threat to public
| health.
| summm wrote:
| Sounds very interesting. Can you provide a link?
| ncmncm wrote:
| I haven't looked it up in decades, but it is what I was
| thinking of long before IV built and patented their thing.
| sradman wrote:
| Machine vision system that detects insects and targets them with
| a retina safe laser, however:
|
| > For both the coarse and fine tracking systems, subjects are
| identified by the size of their silhouettes generated from near
| infrared LED back-illumination or reflection.
|
| Very impressive system but it currently requires a uniform
| backlight.
| mrfusion wrote:
| In theory you could use a lower powered beam to cause the insect
| to turn around and stay out of certain areas. Or use microwaves
| instead.
| jcims wrote:
| Same folks from 10 years ago -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKm8FolQ7jw
| myself248 wrote:
| And the reason they didn't open-source it and save a billion
| people right then, is they were gonna patent it all up and
| commercialize it.
|
| But I still can't buy one. What the hell, capitalism?
| jcims wrote:
| Probably something to do with the liability of autonomous
| targeting and firing of high power laser pulses outside.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| So release it in the public domain and let someone in
| Africa make the choice between a small chance of minor
| vision damage vs crippling and possibly fatal malaria
| jcims wrote:
| This is still going to require some reasonably high power
| laser diodes, precision galvanometers, optics, etc.
| Probably $2k each to cover a very small area. They just
| aren't going to be that practical. Genetically modified
| mosquitos are the way to actually solve the problem, but
| that has its own risks.
| ncmncm wrote:
| A speaker cone is a precision galvanometer. If one of
| these, manufactured, had to be sold for more than $50,
| retail, they are hardly even trying.
| jcims wrote:
| A speaker is a precision open-loop voice coil that
| precisely translates input current to force that
| displaces a membrane. A laser galvanometer is a precision
| closed-loop voice coil that translates input voltage to a
| specific position/displacement. The mechanical components
| to ensure repeatability and the electrical components
| that 'close the loop' are what generally make them (much)
| more expensive than speakers.
|
| Picking off a mosquito will require positional accuracy
| of say 1mm. If you want a range of 10 meters you're going
| to need positional accuracy of ~.1 milliradian. Most
| galvos have a rotational range of .3-.5 radians, so
| you're not going to need extreme positional accuracy
| relative to what's on the market. A controller, pair of
| quality 16 bit dacs, galvo hardware and decent power
| supply should be adequate. I have some of the cheap $300
| ebay 2-axis galvos and those are _not_ sufficient. You
| 're going to need a step up and are easily getting into
| the thousand dollar range for the galvos alone.
| ncmncm wrote:
| You are asking too much of the galvanometer, and not
| enough of the system it is part of. Do your own muscles
| satisfy your requirements? Muscles no different can put a
| basketball in a hoop from half-court, blind.
|
| The return signal from progessively-focusing beam can
| provide the closed-loop control needed.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Genetically modified mosquitos are the way"
|
| So you think a massive invasive change in the core
| biology of a very large animal population is clearly
| superior to a local solution?
|
| Ok, then please explain why.
|
| Personally I would much rather leave the wildlife
| genetics as it is and rather protect homes directly.
| (btw. mosquitos are annoying even if they do not carry
| malaria)
| chinathrow wrote:
| Had to look them up.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
|
| Excellent reputation they have: "The company has been described
| as the country's largest and most notorious patent trolling
| company, the ultimate patent troll, and the most hated company
| in tech."
| [deleted]
| NickBusey wrote:
| I work near a restaurant kitchen, and they spend much of the day
| with a flyswatter in hand getting rid of these pests. I have
| actually verbalized this idea to the chefs in the past, I'm glad
| to see it actually being done. If made cheap enough this could be
| a real solution to keeping bugs away without resorting to nasty
| chemicals or netting everywhere.
|
| This has the potential to be a big win for not only comfort, but
| health and safety as well. Less bugs in kitchens = less chance
| for food getting infected or worse yet, having eggs laid in it.
| ncmncm wrote:
| I am told that bead curtains in doorways keep out (or keep in)
| flies. It seems surprising, but they are very heavily used in
| some places, so there might be reasons to believe it.
|
| I wonder what the mechanism is. Do the beads need to be
| transparent?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why are they infested with flies? If you're having to swat them
| you're already doing something wrong.
| p1mrx wrote:
| What's the point in verbalizing your laser flyswatter idea to
| chefs, when even most engineers wouldn't be able to build one?
| count wrote:
| "Dude, it would so awesome if they like, built a laser
| torrent to shoot down these things" "Yeah, that would be
| sweet" "Yeah"
|
| Because it's a neat sci-fi idea and you're talking to a
| colleague...
| mhb wrote:
| Salt-induced mortality of flying insects:
| https://www.bugasalt.com/
| spiritplumber wrote:
| Infrared lasers are NOT retina-safe.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| are not _necessarily_ retina-safe.
| chinathrow wrote:
| The 4 videos at the end of the article at
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71824-y#Sec18 spark
| joy - these beasts are somehow attracted to my scent/blood so I
| allways get the bites while others are spared.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Your contribution to humanity is appreciated by the rest of us
| being sparred the bastards going after you. Fight well my
| friend!
| jcims wrote:
| Is your blood type o-negative? Any time mosquitos are out i get
| bit more than anyone else by a margin.
| trhway wrote:
| same here. I wonder whether it is related that the O-negative
| is universal donor - i.e. it has lowest chance of causing
| immune reaction by not having all those antigens/factors, and
| thus i'd speculate lowest chance of "indigestion" in mosquito
| :)
|
| Wrt. the original post - if we put "mortality inducing" laser
| on a drone so it would collect the "fried" insects sparrow
| style then we'd have a nice protein rich dinner after half-
| an-hour of the drone flying around. Turning the tables so to
| speak.
| ww520 wrote:
| There were more than one occasion when I hunt for the mosquito
| sneaked in the bedroom that I had thoughts of building a laser
| gun to zap the sucker.
| tda wrote:
| Anyone else chuckle at the term "laser-induced mortality"?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I wonder how the SDI guys used to refer to targets getting
| taken out by lasers. Oh wait, they didn't have to worry about
| it as it never worked!
| narrator wrote:
| Defense Secretary Espers gave a speech a few weeks ago where
| he said China and Russia had directed energy weapons on
| satellites. This was largely ignored with all the other shit
| going on.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Satellites are easy. They're just sitting ducks. ICBM re-
| entry vehicles are much tougher.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Laser-induced rapid scheduled disassembly.
| _Microft wrote:
| Not really. It sounds like Newspeak.
| mhb wrote:
| That or humor.
| throwaway_pdp09 wrote:
| I had a big one at reading one phrase, "lithic braking"
| chrisseaton wrote:
| It means killing them using lasers.
| minitoar wrote:
| I wonder how much discussion it took to settle on that
| phrasing. Or maybe there is precedent?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Laser-induced unscheduled disassembly would be how the
| mosquitoes describe it.
|
| I wonder if it is just heat/denaturing of mosquito
| polypeptides, or if electrical signals in their brian fry from
| too much instantaneous power.
| nanomonkey wrote:
| This is straight out of Cory Doctorow's book 'Pirate Cinema',
| can't wait until hats with these become commodities and I can
| repurpose them to knock out CCD security cameras!
| jmercouris wrote:
| Careful, mosquitos will evolve to be reflective if we deploy
| enough of these :-D
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This needs to exist.
|
| Mosquitoes apparently have accounted for half of all human deaths
| ever.
|
| https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021001/full/news021001-6.ht...
| lbj wrote:
| If memory serves me well, 6 or 7 years ago a former microsoft
| employee made such a device. It ran on solar power and had just
| enough power to melt the wings of mosquitoes. I wanted to buy it
| ever since I saw the prototype, but I dont think it was ever
| released.
| apendleton wrote:
| These are the same people. Nathan Myhrvold is who you're
| thinking of -- he was the former CTO of Microsoft, and among
| other things, now runs an outfit called Intellectual Ventures,
| who did both that work several years ago and is responsible for
| this paper (I wasn't sure at first, but there are references to
| Intellectual Ventures Labs further down into the paper). IV is
| either a research institution of a patent troll or both,
| depending on your perspective, but either way, they don't
| generally commercialize the ideas they come up with, they just
| license them.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Intellectual Ventures did the initial work on this project,
| and while commercialization languished for quite some time,
| an org somewhere in the Microsoft alum web ("Global Good",
| supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) is moving
| forward with commodification of the technology [1]. The
| patent doesn't expire until 2032 [2], but I've always had the
| thought that an open source version would not easily be
| constrained by patent laws (especially if the open devices
| were deployed in developing countries, where needed most)
| (IANAL).
|
| [1] https://photonicsentry.com/
|
| [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8705017
| wussboy wrote:
| So this invention which could remove a significant portion of
| human suffering is being squatted on? And because it is
| patented no one else can remove this suffering either?
| silexia wrote:
| What a nightmare. The patent system is enormously harmful
| to the world and should be done away with.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Depends on whether you think people would work nights and
| weekends to get an idea out the door if someone with more
| money can immediately copy and profit.
|
| History says no, but maybe there is a different system.
| 95014_refugee wrote:
| Not necessarily, or yet, but it would certainly fit IV's MO
| if it were.
| edge17 wrote:
| We tried to schedule some meetings with them a few years ago,
| but after some back and forth they were difficult to deal with.
| In any case, prior to the meeting I had done some preliminary
| research, there is other interesting research in the area
|
| Here's a video of tracking using, if I recall, a fairly cheap
| camera - https://youtu.be/kuaMcVf501Y?t=4
|
| And here's one of the associated papers -
| http://cdcl.umd.edu/papers/rsi2012.pdf
|
| This paper in particular is interesting because, at the time I
| was working with an optics expert, and one of the major
| limitations at the consumer level was what this new paper aims
| to addresses (power output and safety). One observation we made
| was that, for consumers there are not too many laser 'things'
| in the home that are not fully enclosed. Basically, the FDA
| takes laser safety extremely seriously. People often think only
| about looking directly into a laser, but backscatter can also
| be dangerous.
| seg_lol wrote:
| Awesome stuff. I'd like to see entirely non-chemical pest control
| for agriculture.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-17 23:00 UTC)