USDA’s aerial electrostatics: patents, field evidence and facility fit
A real research lineage to include in the evidence map and patent review. Its aircraft methods and spray measurements have a specific relationship to FogLab.
Read the note ↗Thinking in public.
Source-linked explanations of the physical questions and experimental decisions behind FogLab. These are research notes, with the scope of each claim kept visible.
Research notes
Why collected water does not prove clearer air
A collector can change the water balance and the optical signal by different amounts. A visibility product has to measure both.
Read the note ↗What the powered-versus-passive collector test measures
The D/C comparison asks whether electrical operation adds an optical benefit to the same collector under matched conditions.
Read the note ↗Energy numbers need a boundary and a denominator
The published 38.3 Wh/kg estimate is useful context. Turning it into a product specification requires additional measurements and assumptions.
Read the note ↗More charge needs a measured response map
Electrical intervention can change a droplet population without improving visibility. The direction and size of the response must be measured.
Read the note ↗Earlier visibility experiments change the novelty claim
The literature includes optical fog-clearing measurements and experiments outside sealed ducts. Their limitations define a better research question.
Read the note ↗Useful airflow is more than a collector’s face velocity
A device must improve the air that matters to its user. Throughput, bypass and the location of the optical benefit have to be measured together.
Read the note ↗Rainfall guarantees and attribution answer different questions
Read a commercial commitment alongside the measured endpoint, uncertainty and scope of its supporting evidence.
Read the note ↗