Each of the drones was fitted with at least one standard RGB high-definition HD camera, and some drones were fitted with thermal cameras. The drone teams played a role in all phases of the simulation, first by creating and distributing maps the night before the exercise began, then, together with search and rescue teams, providing drone support as requested. The rescue teams were briefed that drones and pilots were on standby, and both the Croatian and French teams requested the drones. The drones were used in a recovery simulation on site 13, where the French team led the response.
- ?
- Studies for Player Piano (Nancarrow).
- Studies after Frederic Chopin (Godowsky, Leopold)?
- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Pittsburgh Pirates (The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly).
The search and rescue team used the maps produced with the drones before the exercise to conduct an initial assessment on foot. On the basis of thermal camera images, the ground crew and rescue dogs were then directed to check specific areas. The most significant added value, according to the French team, was the capacity to assess the sites with live video. This allowed them to see zones that were inaccessible or too dangerous to enter for humans or dogs.
The Croatian team managing site 2 also requested the use of the drones to look for individuals trapped inside one of the buildings. This exercise faced challenges related to the technological limitations associated with the uses of drones as well as questions linked to the interest in the adoption of drones as a tool for search and rescue.
Participants reported that the production of the high-definition maps that were distributed to the teams could not likely be produced on an ad hoc basis in scenarios where such maps do not already exist. While these limitations are noteworthy, when these maps were available, the ground teams frequently preferred them to satellite base maps. When the thermal camera was used for search and rescue during the daytime, the feed was somewhat difficult to read, primarily because the signal was not clearly differentiating a warm surface from a human body. Participants stressed that this difficulty would be greater for someone not trained in or accustomed to viewing thermal imagery.
The qualitative differences in various thermal cameras were noted, and those that are used for inspection purposes such as the ones that were used in this exercise may not be ideal for the search and rescue of people. Early in the day, when the body temperature of a human is still significantly higher than ambient temperatures, was the only time when participants could sufficiently differentiate heat signatures to find potential survivors.
Later in the day, when ambient temperatures rose to similar levels as body temperatures, it became notably difficult to use heat cameras to find people. Information sharing met relatively few challenges, but the question of costs came up. An initial request by the OSOCC for a live feed of all areas viewed by the drones provoked some resistance due to the costs involved. To carry out the live feed, a powerful Internet or satellite connection would have been required as well as an HD wireless transmitter and receiver retrofitted for the drones.
Case Study No Simulation – Drones for Search and Rescue in Emergency Response | tandjfoods.com
Such equipment costs about 8, Euro which was too costly for this particular exercise. Maintaining a live video feed from the drone to the coordination cell is possible if sufficient equipment and funding are available. However organising such a feed is not operationally important enough at the level of senior decision makers to justify the high costs.
Finally, there were some challenges regarding interest in the adoption of drones as a new tool for search and rescue. Search and rescue teams have established methods that they have tested over time and in numerous emergency contexts. The use of dogs or other animals for search and rescue is effective and even with the technology currently available, drones cannot match the precision and ability of animals.
This was clear when considering the technological limitations of infrared cameras, but also non-visual cues like scent and sound, that are more evident to a search and rescue dog than to a drone. In addition, teams such as Finland did not even consider testing the use of drones, simply because drones are not part of their existing toolkit.
Case Study No.11: Simulation – Drones for Search and Rescue in Emergency Response
Teams on the ground agreed that drones were useful in this simulation and that they have the potential to become a part of the emergency response toolkit. Following the drone deployment, he highlighted how useful it was to have the drone enter the building to better understand what obstacles exist and develop a strategy to avoid or overcome them. This study was arranged for chamber orchestra in These three studies were first performed at the Mexico City event in which most of his other studies to date were performed.
All of these canons have at least one characteristic in common: Nancarrow became displeased with the result and decided to withdraw it and to never publish it. However, he made it available as a recording. The rest of the canons were published, starting with Study No. It is largely seen as a precursor of Study No. Finally, the Study No. Chronologically, the next composition to be finished was the Study No.
It is an acceleration study where one voice progressively slows down while the other speeds up. The study starts with a bass line playing a tone row at about 4 notes per second, immediately followed by the other voice, playing thirty-nine notes per second. Then the bass line starts to speed up and the treble line slows down progressively, reaching the same tempo halfway through the piece.
The piece ends up with one of the lines playing notes per second. It was presumably written in and was first performed in the Mexico City performance in The X alludes to the tempo acceleration and deceleration of both parts in the canon.
- ?
- Studies for Player Piano (Nancarrow) - Wikipedia!
- Dancing with the Bear.
- A Bull of a Man.
- Any Soldier!
- Sports in war.
It was also arranged for synthesizer, Marantz computer-piano, two disc-pianos and two voices. The three voices accelerate until the middle of the piece, where they decelerate at the same rate and get to the end of the piece at the same initial speeds.
Navigation menu
This canon was first performed in Kassel, Germany , in Summer As in Study No. The treble accelerated part is considered to be "unplayable". The study was also first performed in Kassel in It features rapid repetitions, chains of trills and glissandi. It has been called a "masterpiece" by American scholar Kyle Gann. It was first performed on 30 May , in Ojai, California. It features many "idiomatic" traits of the player piano: Its ending is a second section in which notes are player with the sustain pedal held down, sometimes even getting to two hundred notes per second.
However, even though it has canonic elements, it is mostly a rhapsodic piece. It starts with one voice and ends up with seven. The study has been arranged for 7 hands on two to four pianos, piano four-hands, small orchestra and chamber ensemble. It was first performed at the Kassel event in In the Study No. Nancarrow himself saw the study as "the ticking of an ontological clock world clock with events running along beside it at different speeds". It is one of the few pieces which have actual rules and correlations between tempo and pitch.
To serve as a guide for listeners, Nancarrow also added chords at regular intervals to provide a temporal orientation. However, Nancarrow dismissed the idea of putting preparations in a piano for this study. It has up to eight parts and resembles the ticking of clocks at different speeds. Nancarrow never liked the piece and was initially willing to withdraw it. With this study, Nancarrow started to use characteristics in notation other than the traditional ones. This study is a study on note durations, with eight voices being very close together. It was presumably composed around , and is strikingly similar to Ligeti's Monument for two pianos, written in This study was first performed in Aptos, California , on 27 August and has been arranged for two pianos and for piano four-hands.
The last study from is Study No. After this study, Nancarrow decided to go back to the unprepared piano. Nancarrow recorded the piece, but never published the score and discarded it, for he was not pleased with the result. This study was first performed in public in the same even as Study No. It has three differentiated parts, called "movements" by Kyle Gann , which follow a sequence of "fast-slow-fast". However, these movements are not marked in any way in the original score. This study was arranged for string quartet in This study was arranged for piano four-hands and chamber ensemble.
As in the previous study, the different speeds are alternated between the parts of the composition. Considered one of the most important studies by Nancarrow himself, this study was completed circa and was arranged for string quartet in All of these three studies were given a first performance at the Kassel event, in Summer The longest and most important study by Nancarrow, Study No. It takes up to 10 minutes to perform.
These twelve different speeds correspond to the ratios of the vibrations in the notes of a chromatic scale. It was first performed in Graz on 31 October and has since been arranged at least four times: The other three studies were begun between and , but were completed between and It was premiered in Mexico City on 23 October and was arranged for string trio in The four parts meet in the middle of the composition. Therefore, the fourth voice ends first, then the third, then the second and, finally, the first.
It was finished in It was finished between and , even though it was performed before it was finished. These two studies were first performed in the Bremen event, on 15 May From here, Nancarrow started to work on other creative ways to develop his compositions. It is divided into two parts: This means that the two pianos play the same score, but the second piano starts approximately 20 seconds away from the first, but a bit faster, in a way that both pianos end up simultaneously.
It has been unofficially subtitled Transcendental. It was completed in and was first performed in the Pro Musica Nova event, in A complete version of the piece was first performed at Kassel in Summer From now on, Nancarrow started to fulfill commissions. This is the case of the Study No. It was first performed in Los Angeles , on 2 November It is unofficially subtitled Aleatoric Canon or Aleatoric Round , given that it is a composition for two player pianos, but the voices in the canon can be player at any tempo relationship.
It was completed in and first premiered on 6 December , in Los Angeles. The last commission from Betty Freeman was the Study No. It was initially thought to be a five-movement suite, which would take up to 20 minutes to perform. However, Nancarrow thought it was too long and decided to discard three of the five movements and write another one.
The final composition is a three-movement composition: All of them were composed between and , and were first premiered on 30 January , in Los Angeles, even though the shortened version was finished in The first movement is a boogie-woogie which what Nancarrow called a "spastic rhythm". In the third movement, Nancarrow uses a technique first known to have been used by Henry Cowell , in which the piano makes a very fast glissando only sustaining a few notes of a chord.
Two of the other three discarded parts were finished and assigned the numbers 46 and