Thermal Imaging and Object Detection at Sea

AI Thread Summary
Thermal imaging may not be effective for underwater object detection due to water's opacity to infrared light, which significantly absorbs infrared radiation. While combining thermal imaging with sonar could enhance detection capabilities, the limited heat radiation from underwater objects, primarily cold-blooded animals and insulated structures, poses challenges. The discussion highlights that most underwater entities do not radiate sufficient heat for thermal imaging to be viable. The consensus suggests that the inherent properties of water make infrared imaging impractical for underwater applications. Therefore, sonar remains the primary method for detecting objects beneath the surface.
fizzziks
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
So my mind tends to wander, but I was thinking... since active/passive sonar is used to detect objects underwater, couldn't thermal imaging be used as well (in conjunction)? Isn't there any reason why we couldn't combine the two sensors into cooperatively working together to detect submarines, enemy swimmers, underwater mines, etc assuming the radiating heat is sufficient enough and to the required intensity of the thermal imager?

Does this make sense at all? I was hoping to spur some discussion on the topic.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What is there under water that radiates heat? Most of the animals are cold blooded and those that aren't are heavily insulated due to the water's ability to remove heat quickly.
 
I don't know for sure, but my guess why it hasn't been done is because water is opaque to infrared, meaning you can't "image" underwater in the infrared spectrum.

Edit:

My suspicions are correct. The following picture shows that water absorbs infrared much more readily than visible. This means if you can't see it with visible light, you certinly won't see it in infrared.

[PLAIN]http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread 'Query on Isentropic relationships (such as PV^gamma = constant)'

Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
View full post »

Thread 'Dry sump pump issue'

I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
View full post »

Similar threads

Active IR vs. Passive Thermal Imaging
Replies
3
Views
15K
I Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
Replies
13
Views
6K
B Infrared Detectors & The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
4
Replies
152
Views
9K
Programs How good is this applied math program?
Replies
13
Views
3K
A suggestion for dolphin communication.
Replies
6
Views
6K
Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
Replies
4
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top