Average FOSS genius
Did Maxwell contribute to thermodynamics?
There was a cool hightech one where they hid an invisible motor inside the frame of the bike. It could not move the bike by itself but it added a few watts that gave a clear advantage. https://road.cc/content/news/uci-warns-it-impossible-use-motors-tour-de-france-309061
Could you quote the articles? I read them and couldn't find the data that backs your claim. But maybe I missed it. As the person making the claim, it is your job to demonstrate it.
Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:
‘Eco-friendly’ fireworks, which do not use perchlorate and have lower levels of heavy metals, do exist (Fan et al. 2021); the problem lies in their higher cost of manufac- turing (Palaneeswari and Muthulakshmi 2012). The future of ‘firework’ displays may lie in the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones and visible-wavelength lasers for light shows have the benefit of being reusable, have no emissions, and are quiet (Daukantas 2010; Zerlenga et al. 2021). Drones come with their own issues for wildlife, however, usually flying at low altitudes where there are most likely to come into contact with wildlife; a review indicated that many taxa react negatively to the presence of a drone (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2019). Even so, drone light shows are less likely to disturb animals, wild or domestic, with noise, nor do they deposit large amounts of pollutants.
The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don't quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.
Would you have a different reading of this article?
No you don't, that's for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?
Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.
I am not saying they are better. I am questioning if they are. Please don't mistake my question as veiled disagreement, I am not a Xitter user. Someone claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it, but there likely isn't any yet. I am open to the possibility, I just want to make sure it is actually more ecological. It is objectively demonstrated for electric cars vs thermic cars, for fireworks vs drone show, it probably isn't yet.
Zero emission at use, not at fabrication, probably not when recharging and not as electronic waste at the end. Yes, I am being serious, considering only emission during usage is a very limited view of what carbon footprint is. A view that is often used by companies for green washing. Do you also believe electric cars are zero emissions? Considering full life, knowing which one emits more is not trivial.
Parent comment claims it would, so my questions refers to that.
The hack was performed by a 13 old Kenyan using ChatGPT to avenge his father, traumatized for life after being exploited by OpenAI to label images containing torture and pedophilia.
Are drones really less pollution than fireworks?
Thanks. I wonder why I didn't hear about him in thermodynamics but did in electromagnetics, maybe I forgot.