I could see this being useful for LEOs and guys clearing caves and bunkers... In situations like those, being able to look around a corner without exposing yourself to hostile fire is a great advantage.
In the case of firefighting, it would be a lot less useful. We're not worried about poking our head around a corner. No one is shooting at us. How is this better than looking around the corner myself with a thermal imaging camera?
In many ways it's worse... Modern TICs have lots of useful features like giving you the temperature at a certain point on the screen. Using a TIC is also more complicated than simply looking at the picture. A single static image doesn't do me much good. I want to see how the heat is moving through the room, looking for signs of impending flashover, etc. The heat signature of a victim lying on the floor can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish from something like a smoldering blanket if you don't have a dynamic image to look at for a couple seconds.
The one use I do see for this is hinted at in the video (where it warns the operator of the carbon monoxide level). This _could_ be useful in HazMat situations (pack the thing with sensors for various hazardous materials). However... if you're close enough to throw the thing into a suspect HazMat condition, you're close enough that you need to be wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment... so why not use the handheld sensor you already have, instead of buying this (presumably) expensive remote sensor?
> How is this better than looking around the corner myself with a thermal imaging camera?
A rapidly moving camera should get a lot more pictures, a lot more angles and room coverage than a handheld one in a static location. Would be fascinating to hear a founder on this, how to combine all those images-- under desks, behind cabinets, under bed, etc.-- into something rapidly grasped by the viewer.
You can't be certain a single toss is going to capture all the angles you need (inside a closet, under the covers of a bed, etc). It also still gives you a static 'snapshot' of the space. You really need a dynamic view to get an idea of what the fire is doing, distinguish victims from other blobby heat signatures, etc.
The UI would be tricky as well... Consider the conditions the user is operating in... Extremely poor visibility (no hi-res display (potentially solved by project on the facepiece directly)), bulky gloves (no touch interface), heavy gear (every extra pound matters), significantly restricted movement (tough to throw the thing in the first place).
I think there's a lot of progress to be made in this field in the near future, but I'm not sure this is it... Things like helment mounted TICs, and HUDs projected directly on the SCBA facepiece seem like they would be far more useable, and easy to implement..
In the case of firefighting, it would be a lot less useful. We're not worried about poking our head around a corner. No one is shooting at us. How is this better than looking around the corner myself with a thermal imaging camera?
In many ways it's worse... Modern TICs have lots of useful features like giving you the temperature at a certain point on the screen. Using a TIC is also more complicated than simply looking at the picture. A single static image doesn't do me much good. I want to see how the heat is moving through the room, looking for signs of impending flashover, etc. The heat signature of a victim lying on the floor can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish from something like a smoldering blanket if you don't have a dynamic image to look at for a couple seconds.
The one use I do see for this is hinted at in the video (where it warns the operator of the carbon monoxide level). This _could_ be useful in HazMat situations (pack the thing with sensors for various hazardous materials). However... if you're close enough to throw the thing into a suspect HazMat condition, you're close enough that you need to be wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment... so why not use the handheld sensor you already have, instead of buying this (presumably) expensive remote sensor?