I only got a smartphone two-something years ago. Prior to that, I had a dumb phone with extended battery; after three and a half years, I still got 3-4 days between charges. When new, I charged it once a week, and that was with heavy talk usage. So even today's smartphones seem to have short lives compared to that.
I have an extended battery on my current phone (rooted Samsung droid charge), and I still have to charge it every day, at least during the week (but that's also because I now work in a large metal building with very poor signal inside). I don't use much data, either, but "cell standby" is usually in the top two list of power consumers on my phone.
I'd be happy with just an extended battery option on future phones, though it would be nice if things like cases and covers were available for phones fitted with said batteries.
The "thin!" mantra is getting ridiculous, though; when I got my current phone I asked about an extended battery and the sales people just got a blank look. "Why would you want that?" they asked. "You could get the wireless charger and then the phone would still be thin! You could get a car charger! Why would you make the phone not thin?!" It blew their minds that someone might not care about thinness, or might even prefer a little thickness.
I think it's got a lot lot more to do with: - Big, bright displays - Multicore, gigahertz CPU's regularly kept busy with background apps - Far more sensors embedded in the unit to power - GPS, accelerometers, etc.
Plus, the whole obsession with "the phone must be THIN!!!1!" If the manufacturers quit worrying about trying to fit the phone into the form factor of an index card, there would be enough thickness for a reasonable battery.
I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot. I came into this thread expecting fools to be spouting nonsense that needed correction. Fortunately, the situation appears to be handled. Well done, everybody!
Your 1985 Civic would probably fail today's crash tests and emissions checks (in the areas that require them), and likely lacked features most consumers prefer these days.
-Higher crash standards demand more structure and additional equipment like airbags -Higher emissions standards dictate more additional equipment (catalytic converters, etc.) and different combustion profiles -Consumer expectations for performance (acceleration/handling), size, and comfort (features, sound insulation, etc) have gone up
All of the above add weight to the vehicle (making for inefficiency) Oh, and the mandated use of ethanol reduces mileage even further.
Is it kind of sad that I'm hoping the launch is scrubbed till Thursday, when I'll be down in the Cape Canaveral area? I've watched launches from there before while visiting my grandparents; I'd like to catch another one...
Living in a dense city with people all around me all the time sounds like a nightmare. Even if I didn't work in an industry that requires open, unpopulated space in which to make and operate our products, I wouldn't want to work in a city.
there's so many pages of proposed legislation every year that if a senator or rep didn't have his staff to sift the wheat from the chaff he'd never have enough time to vote on anything.
More precisely: The National Firearms Act of 1934 says that: -rifles with a barrel less than 16" long, or less than 26" long overall -shotguns with a barrel less than 18" long, or less than 28" long overall -suppressors -firearms that shoot more than one projectile with a single trigger action (i.e., machine guns--shotguns are excluded provided they only fire one shell at a time)
are illegal unless a $200 tax is paid, and the owner passes a background check. The Hughes amendment further states that it is illegal to manufacture a new machine gun for civilian, non law-enforcement use after 1987, and illegal to posess such a weapon.
Provided that you you file the appropriate paperwork with the feds, pay for your tax stamp, and you stay in line with your state's regulations, you can manufacture a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun, or convert an existing "regular" weapon into a short-barreled version. But you still can't manufacture machine guns.
Now, a semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull; also called "autoloading) rifle or handgun is a different matter; those are just "normal" firearms, except for a few states with "assault weapon" (read: painted black and/or looks scary) bans. Some states also have restrictions on hunting with semiautomatic weapons.
No, there is something worse. Try having 40+ guys sharing 2 stalls--or worse, 350 people sharing 7. Just take whatever the building code says for restroom requirements and triple it. Make sure you have a shower or two on site, as well as good ventilation for the bathrooms.
Next, install a couple of restaurant-level coffeemakers (they can handle a high duty cycle with abuse) and supply coffee, filters, and generic creamer/sugar.
A cafeteria is a little too much for a small company like the OP works at.
It's not an econo box like a prius, it's a lux car.... This thing is game-changing
It's not a game-changer because it is a luxury car. I understand the whole early-adopter thing, but for it to really be a game-changer, it needs to be much more affordable.
Ford has come closer with the new C-max plug-in, but it's still priced a little high (and only offering it in the premium trim package doesn't help matters). I seriously considered buying one, but the cost difference was too great (too long of a payback time) and there's too much cargo room sacrificed. I'm probably going with the regular hybrid, if I can ever find one to test drive...
Despite claims to the contrary by ditto heads, GM is at or near breakeven on this car, by the car, now. Some of the hate on electrics is due to taking all the NRE and billing it to the number of cars sold already - by that metric, the first hamburger sold at a new burger joint franchise is losing a million bucks per. Check the facts
Much as I don't like GM, this has bugged me. Breakeven, NRE vs. RE, etc. need to be taught in high-school economics (which really ought to be a full-year class).
What I have found is showing around 15 military missions, not nearly the 2/3 figure you're suggesting.
Now, if we're talking design features of the shuttle, those were heavily influenced by military requirements. The only way NASA could get enough funding to build the shuttle was to ask the military, which imposed significant performance requirements that drove up the weight and complexity of the shuttle. And, while useful, the additional capability was never fully used, nor was it ever used for its intended purpose.
For large airlines, that 35lb argument is such a red herring. $1.2 million in fuel savings when spread out per flight has to be so far below the noise floor as to be completely meaningless... Maybe the weight makes a difference on a small 206 Caravan, but for these big birds, call a spade a spade - the pilots want their toys.
Why is this modded informative? 35lb of weight savings is a big deal even on large aircraft. Aircraft manufacturers will spend thousands of dollars (even in recurring costs) to save a single pound of weight, let alone 35. And it doesn't matter what other factors are present, that 35lb saved is still 35lb less weight the aircraft carries around, reducing fuel burn--and that amount is quantified in the performance equations, and is measureable over time. Or, it's another 35lb of revenue-generating payload that can be carried.
But then, I'm just an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer, and a pilot. What do I know?
The graphing calculators have additional functions (not just the ability to create graphs) and are programmable--a built-in BASIC-like language allows for simple programs and scripts to be written, and assembly programming gives more complex options.
However, that's not what really drives the cost. The TI-8X series ones, and some of the HP calculators, are a known standard, and many tests (SAT, AP tests, etc. if I'm remembering correctly) will not allow other brands to be used, only these specified models. TI and HP have essentially a duopoly on the market; they convinced standardized test makers and school boards to only allow use of their calculators and thereby made a captive market. They've kept the performance and construction the same over those years, and really charge far more for those products than it takes to make them at this point.
My TI-86 seemed really cool in 9th grade. I didn't realize how truly limited it was until I got a smartphone.
No you don't. So long as you stay within the federal law (i.e., make them for personal use only, and not make too many of them), and you don't build anything that isn't otherwise prohibited in that state or federally (e.g., Class 3 weapons without the appropriate paperwork, etc.), you're pretty much ok. In other words, if you can legally buy it and own it, you can make it.
The only states I could see that might have restrictions on manufacturing would be California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown.
The limitations on where you can fly have been eliminated, at least once you are out of the flight-test phase (7 hours for E-LSA, 25 for E-AB with certified engines, 40 for E-AB with non-certified engines). The prohibition on flying for commercial purposes is still in place.
That just isn't true; you still need a flightworthiness certificate from the FAA in order to register and (legally) fly the plane. The exceptions are for ultralights, sport aircraft, and aircraft which remain tethered to the ground (see: moller Skycar) or never leave ground effect (see: hovercraft and ground effects planes such as the Ekranoplane - which would be registered as boats).
That isn't certification, though. A certified aircraft (anything factory-built, basically) has to meet very particular standards for performance, function, reliability, etc. That takes a lot of paperwork and testing (I know this because I am an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer). It also requires very tight control of the manufacturing process, and requires that any modifications or deviations be approved.
Homebuilt aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, but that is expressly not a certification. There's a little formality to it, but it's basically a quick check to make sure you didn't do something horribly obviously wrong (like forget to hook up your controls, or leave a wing off, or forget your basic instruments). You're also required to perform some level of test-flying. And even after that's done, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire, or use the airplane for any commercial purpose (like banner towing or aerial photography).
With a certified light airplane, you get a guarantee that the aircraft meets certain performance and safety standards, a proven flight envelope, greater flexibility with use, and a wider resale market. However, you have to pay a licensed mechanic for all your maintenance (including annual inspections) past things like changing your oil, you have to follow the manufacturer's maintenance program, and making changes or modifications (or even buying replacement parts) can be very expensive.
A homebuilt airplane will generally give you better performance for your money in terms of range, speed, payload, maneuverability, etc., and there are many more options to choose from than on the certified market. It is also much more customizable (you can fit any equipment to it that you want), and the maintenance is much cheaper because you can do it all yourself, even if the airplane is secondhand (except for the annual inspection--you can only do that yourself if you were the primary builder). Homebuilts also tend to have newer, fancier "stuff" than certified airplanes, because you don't have to go through lengthy certification processes to add those things.
On the negative side, homebuilts do not come with that guarantee of performance or safety standards. That doesn't mean that they don't meet them (many do), just that they aren't proven to have done so. They are also subject to varying degrees of build quality--some builders produce amazing stuff, others I wouldn't trust to build a Lego kit properly. Designs with many flying examples (or those from established kit makers) are generally less risky than one-offs; airplanes built closely to plans generally have less risk than those with drastic modifications or unusual engine installations. You also lose flexibility with use; you can't use the airplane for commercial purposes, and your resale market is much smaller--fewer people are willing to buy used homebuilts. And finally (obviously), you have to invest the build time--something that's enjoyable to some, and a nightmare to others.
My dad and I (along with a little help from the rest of the family) built an airplane while I was in high school. I'm now looking to build one myself (albeit a smaller, more affordable one) as soon as I finish saving up the money for the kit.
Maybe if manufacturers didn't only offer diesels on the highest trim package, people would buy them. But unless you already wanted all of the bells and whistles, it's not worth paying the extra for them just to get the efficient option.
There's what's legal on the books, and then what's possible in practice. Outside of a few places that get all of their revenue from giving tickets to out-of-town drivers, I can't think of anywhere that police will stop you for less than 10 over on the interstate.
Most of the longer trips I've taken (on I-95, I-10, I-75...) traffic seems to flow around 75-80mph.
And in places like Atlanta, if you aren't doing at least 10 over, you're putting yourself in danger.
I observe that people hold books with their left hand and then lift the cover/turn pages with their right
I'm very definitely right-handed, but I tend to hold the book in my right and flip pages with the left.
I use a "normal" right-handed mouse setup, but I also have a 3D spacemouse for my left hand--a vital tool for doing CAD work.
What's interesting is piloting--single-seat (or tandem-seat) fixed-wing aircraft, all helicopters, and some miltary side-by-side aircraft are set up so that the pilot holds the stick/yoke in the right hand, and the throttles in the left. But as a general rule, in civilian and most transport aircraft, the primary pilot (captain, PIC, etc.) flies from the left side, and holds the stick in his left hand because there's only one set of throttles in the middle. Given a couple hours and landings to adjust, I've never had trouble making the switch from flying one way to flying the other (e.g., flying from the other seat), and neither have any other pilots I've talked to. (Really, the biggest challenge is the different sight picture from the other seat, not the manipulation of the controls)
Lighter turnout gear is always a good thing, but given that the greater threat is heated gases (ambient temperature in a fire room can be a few hundred degrees, and you'll operate there for minutes at a time) and some physical protection against contact with hot and/or sharp objects, and seeing that some level of thickness and insulation will be necessary for that, I doubt this will make much of a difference.
Now, if you could somehow significantly increase the breathable air our packs contain, while making the pack itself lighter and less bulky (and yet easy to refill/swap bottles)... that is something we'd be all for.
As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down.
I was never taught that, and none of us would ever consider doing that in a fire, because
the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely.
Not to mention possibly burning our lungs, inhaling smoke and toxic gases, dropping the helmet, etc.
We aren't going to remove helmet and facepiece; we're just going to grab the kid and get him out of there, and worry about calming him down outside, where it's cooler and has breathable air.
As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear. We certainly don't have time to go applying it on the way to a call anyway.
Unless maybe it can be applied to the outside of the turnout gear and make it more heat-reflective?
I'm in the same situation as GP; OT is rare for me, but I do get paid (at regular rate, not 1.5) when I work it. But I'm an aerospace engineer, not a programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
I only got a smartphone two-something years ago. Prior to that, I had a dumb phone with extended battery; after three and a half years, I still got 3-4 days between charges. When new, I charged it once a week, and that was with heavy talk usage. So even today's smartphones seem to have short lives compared to that.
I have an extended battery on my current phone (rooted Samsung droid charge), and I still have to charge it every day, at least during the week (but that's also because I now work in a large metal building with very poor signal inside). I don't use much data, either, but "cell standby" is usually in the top two list of power consumers on my phone.
I'd be happy with just an extended battery option on future phones, though it would be nice if things like cases and covers were available for phones fitted with said batteries.
The "thin!" mantra is getting ridiculous, though; when I got my current phone I asked about an extended battery and the sales people just got a blank look. "Why would you want that?" they asked. "You could get the wireless charger and then the phone would still be thin! You could get a car charger! Why would you make the phone not thin?!" It blew their minds that someone might not care about thinness, or might even prefer a little thickness.
I think it's got a lot lot more to do with:
- Big, bright displays
- Multicore, gigahertz CPU's regularly kept busy with background apps
- Far more sensors embedded in the unit to power - GPS, accelerometers, etc.
Plus, the whole obsession with "the phone must be THIN!!!1!"
If the manufacturers quit worrying about trying to fit the phone into the form factor of an index card, there would be enough thickness for a reasonable battery.
I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot. I came into this thread expecting fools to be spouting nonsense that needed correction. Fortunately, the situation appears to be handled. Well done, everybody!
I never understood why manufacturers feel the need to include crappy non-removable bloatware games and their own home-grown half-assed crappy UIs.
Doesn't matter much to me though; I'll just root and install what I want.
Your 1985 Civic would probably fail today's crash tests and emissions checks (in the areas that require them), and likely lacked features most consumers prefer these days.
-Higher crash standards demand more structure and additional equipment like airbags
-Higher emissions standards dictate more additional equipment (catalytic converters, etc.) and different combustion profiles
-Consumer expectations for performance (acceleration/handling), size, and comfort (features, sound insulation, etc) have gone up
All of the above add weight to the vehicle (making for inefficiency) Oh, and the mandated use of ethanol reduces mileage even further.
Is it kind of sad that I'm hoping the launch is scrubbed till Thursday, when I'll be down in the Cape Canaveral area? I've watched launches from there before while visiting my grandparents; I'd like to catch another one...
Living in a dense city with people all around me all the time sounds like a nightmare. Even if I didn't work in an industry that requires open, unpopulated space in which to make and operate our products, I wouldn't want to work in a city.
"Hell is other people."
there's so many pages of proposed legislation every year that if a senator or rep didn't have his staff to sift the wheat from the chaff he'd never have enough time to vote on anything.
I wouldn't consider that a bad thing.
More precisely:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 says that:
-rifles with a barrel less than 16" long, or less than 26" long overall
-shotguns with a barrel less than 18" long, or less than 28" long overall
-suppressors
-firearms that shoot more than one projectile with a single trigger action (i.e., machine guns--shotguns are excluded provided they only fire one shell at a time)
are illegal unless a $200 tax is paid, and the owner passes a background check. The Hughes amendment further states that it is illegal to manufacture a new machine gun for civilian, non law-enforcement use after 1987, and illegal to posess such a weapon.
Provided that you you file the appropriate paperwork with the feds, pay for your tax stamp, and you stay in line with your state's regulations, you can manufacture a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun, or convert an existing "regular" weapon into a short-barreled version. But you still can't manufacture machine guns.
Now, a semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull; also called "autoloading) rifle or handgun is a different matter; those are just "normal" firearms, except for a few states with "assault weapon" (read: painted black and/or looks scary) bans. Some states also have restrictions on hunting with semiautomatic weapons.
No, there is something worse. Try having 40+ guys sharing 2 stalls--or worse, 350 people sharing 7. Just take whatever the building code says for restroom requirements and triple it. Make sure you have a shower or two on site, as well as good ventilation for the bathrooms.
Next, install a couple of restaurant-level coffeemakers (they can handle a high duty cycle with abuse) and supply coffee, filters, and generic creamer/sugar.
A cafeteria is a little too much for a small company like the OP works at.
It's not an econo box like a prius, it's a lux car.... This thing is game-changing
It's not a game-changer because it is a luxury car. I understand the whole early-adopter thing, but for it to really be a game-changer, it needs to be much more affordable.
Ford has come closer with the new C-max plug-in, but it's still priced a little high (and only offering it in the premium trim package doesn't help matters). I seriously considered buying one, but the cost difference was too great (too long of a payback time) and there's too much cargo room sacrificed. I'm probably going with the regular hybrid, if I can ever find one to test drive...
Despite claims to the contrary by ditto heads, GM is at or near breakeven on this car, by the car, now. Some of the hate on electrics is due to taking all the NRE and billing it to the number of cars sold already - by that metric, the first hamburger sold at a new burger joint franchise is losing a million bucks per. Check the facts
Much as I don't like GM, this has bugged me. Breakeven, NRE vs. RE, etc. need to be taught in high-school economics (which really ought to be a full-year class).
What I have found is showing around 15 military missions, not nearly the 2/3 figure you're suggesting.
Now, if we're talking design features of the shuttle, those were heavily influenced by military requirements. The only way NASA could get enough funding to build the shuttle was to ask the military, which imposed significant performance requirements that drove up the weight and complexity of the shuttle. And, while useful, the additional capability was never fully used, nor was it ever used for its intended purpose.
For large airlines, that 35lb argument is such a red herring. $1.2 million in fuel savings when spread out per flight has to be so far below the noise floor as to be completely meaningless... Maybe the weight makes a difference on a small 206 Caravan, but for these big birds, call a spade a spade - the pilots want their toys.
Why is this modded informative? 35lb of weight savings is a big deal even on large aircraft. Aircraft manufacturers will spend thousands of dollars (even in recurring costs) to save a single pound of weight, let alone 35. And it doesn't matter what other factors are present, that 35lb saved is still 35lb less weight the aircraft carries around, reducing fuel burn--and that amount is quantified in the performance equations, and is measureable over time. Or, it's another 35lb of revenue-generating payload that can be carried.
But then, I'm just an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer, and a pilot. What do I know?
The graphing calculators have additional functions (not just the ability to create graphs) and are programmable--a built-in BASIC-like language allows for simple programs and scripts to be written, and assembly programming gives more complex options.
However, that's not what really drives the cost. The TI-8X series ones, and some of the HP calculators, are a known standard, and many tests (SAT, AP tests, etc. if I'm remembering correctly) will not allow other brands to be used, only these specified models. TI and HP have essentially a duopoly on the market; they convinced standardized test makers and school boards to only allow use of their calculators and thereby made a captive market. They've kept the performance and construction the same over those years, and really charge far more for those products than it takes to make them at this point.
My TI-86 seemed really cool in 9th grade. I didn't realize how truly limited it was until I got a smartphone.
No you don't. So long as you stay within the federal law (i.e., make them for personal use only, and not make too many of them), and you don't build anything that isn't otherwise prohibited in that state or federally (e.g., Class 3 weapons without the appropriate paperwork, etc.), you're pretty much ok. In other words, if you can legally buy it and own it, you can make it.
The only states I could see that might have restrictions on manufacturing would be California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown.
The limitations on where you can fly have been eliminated, at least once you are out of the flight-test phase (7 hours for E-LSA, 25 for E-AB with certified engines, 40 for E-AB with non-certified engines). The prohibition on flying for commercial purposes is still in place.
That just isn't true; you still need a flightworthiness certificate from the FAA in order to register and (legally) fly the plane. The exceptions are for ultralights, sport aircraft, and aircraft which remain tethered to the ground (see: moller Skycar) or never leave ground effect (see: hovercraft and ground effects planes such as the Ekranoplane - which would be registered as boats).
That isn't certification, though. A certified aircraft (anything factory-built, basically) has to meet very particular standards for performance, function, reliability, etc. That takes a lot of paperwork and testing (I know this because I am an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer). It also requires very tight control of the manufacturing process, and requires that any modifications or deviations be approved.
Homebuilt aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, but that is expressly not a certification. There's a little formality to it, but it's basically a quick check to make sure you didn't do something horribly obviously wrong (like forget to hook up your controls, or leave a wing off, or forget your basic instruments). You're also required to perform some level of test-flying. And even after that's done, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire, or use the airplane for any commercial purpose (like banner towing or aerial photography).
With a certified light airplane, you get a guarantee that the aircraft meets certain performance and safety standards, a proven flight envelope, greater flexibility with use, and a wider resale market. However, you have to pay a licensed mechanic for all your maintenance (including annual inspections) past things like changing your oil, you have to follow the manufacturer's maintenance program, and making changes or modifications (or even buying replacement parts) can be very expensive.
A homebuilt airplane will generally give you better performance for your money in terms of range, speed, payload, maneuverability, etc., and there are many more options to choose from than on the certified market. It is also much more customizable (you can fit any equipment to it that you want), and the maintenance is much cheaper because you can do it all yourself, even if the airplane is secondhand (except for the annual inspection--you can only do that yourself if you were the primary builder). Homebuilts also tend to have newer, fancier "stuff" than certified airplanes, because you don't have to go through lengthy certification processes to add those things.
On the negative side, homebuilts do not come with that guarantee of performance or safety standards. That doesn't mean that they don't meet them (many do), just that they aren't proven to have done so. They are also subject to varying degrees of build quality--some builders produce amazing stuff, others I wouldn't trust to build a Lego kit properly. Designs with many flying examples (or those from established kit makers) are generally less risky than one-offs; airplanes built closely to plans generally have less risk than those with drastic modifications or unusual engine installations. You also lose flexibility with use; you can't use the airplane for commercial purposes, and your resale market is much smaller--fewer people are willing to buy used homebuilts. And finally (obviously), you have to invest the build time--something that's enjoyable to some, and a nightmare to others.
My dad and I (along with a little help from the rest of the family) built an airplane while I was in high school. I'm now looking to build one myself (albeit a smaller, more affordable one) as soon as I finish saving up the money for the kit.
Maybe if manufacturers didn't only offer diesels on the highest trim package, people would buy them. But unless you already wanted all of the bells and whistles, it's not worth paying the extra for them just to get the efficient option.
There's what's legal on the books, and then what's possible in practice. Outside of a few places that get all of their revenue from giving tickets to out-of-town drivers, I can't think of anywhere that police will stop you for less than 10 over on the interstate.
Most of the longer trips I've taken (on I-95, I-10, I-75...) traffic seems to flow around 75-80mph.
And in places like Atlanta, if you aren't doing at least 10 over, you're putting yourself in danger.
I observe that people hold books with their left hand and then lift the cover/turn pages with their right
I'm very definitely right-handed, but I tend to hold the book in my right and flip pages with the left.
I use a "normal" right-handed mouse setup, but I also have a 3D spacemouse for my left hand--a vital tool for doing CAD work.
What's interesting is piloting--single-seat (or tandem-seat) fixed-wing aircraft, all helicopters, and some miltary side-by-side aircraft are set up so that the pilot holds the stick/yoke in the right hand, and the throttles in the left. But as a general rule, in civilian and most transport aircraft, the primary pilot (captain, PIC, etc.) flies from the left side, and holds the stick in his left hand because there's only one set of throttles in the middle. Given a couple hours and landings to adjust, I've never had trouble making the switch from flying one way to flying the other (e.g., flying from the other seat), and neither have any other pilots I've talked to. (Really, the biggest challenge is the different sight picture from the other seat, not the manipulation of the controls)
Lighter turnout gear is always a good thing, but given that the greater threat is heated gases (ambient temperature in a fire room can be a few hundred degrees, and you'll operate there for minutes at a time) and some physical protection against contact with hot and/or sharp objects, and seeing that some level of thickness and insulation will be necessary for that, I doubt this will make much of a difference.
Now, if you could somehow significantly increase the breathable air our packs contain, while making the pack itself lighter and less bulky (and yet easy to refill/swap bottles)... that is something we'd be all for.
As I understand the situation right now, a firefighter who can't approach a child has the option to remove their mask briefly to try to calm the child down.
I was never taught that, and none of us would ever consider doing that in a fire, because
the mask may not seal properly afterward, or even those few moments with the mask off could burn their face severely.
Not to mention possibly burning our lungs, inhaling smoke and toxic gases, dropping the helmet, etc.
We aren't going to remove helmet and facepiece; we're just going to grab the kid and get him out of there, and worry about calming him down outside, where it's cooler and has breathable air.
As a firefighter, I don't really see what benefit this stuff will really bring to us, given that we're already supposed to be covered completely by our turnout gear. We certainly don't have time to go applying it on the way to a call anyway.
Unless maybe it can be applied to the outside of the turnout gear and make it more heat-reflective?
I'd say launch it into the sun once we get the rocket tech to do that efficiently but that seems awfully wasteful
That would actually take a good bit more energy than just ejecting it from the solar system entirely.
I'm in the same situation as GP; OT is rare for me, but I do get paid (at regular rate, not 1.5) when I work it. But I'm an aerospace engineer, not a programmer.