## 4 Results and Discussions
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.4 \\ 1.04 \\ 2.83 \\ 2.83 \\ 0.850 \\ 0.850 \\ 0.86 \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} 1.4 \\ 1.04 \\ 1.04 \\ 1.04 \\ 1.04 \\ 17.07 \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} 2.83 \\ 2.83 \\ 1.02 \\ 23.05 \\ 23.05 \\ \end{tabular}  &
\begin{tabular}{c} 7.12 \\ 1.09 \\ 1.02 \\ 1.09 \\ 1.19 \\ 1.19 \\ 1.21 \\ 1.21 \\ 1.21 \\ 1.21 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\ 1.20 \\  
moment the smoke curtain was generated, and the area of interest was covered, whereas the screening effect occurred in IR from the moment the pyrotechnic mixture was ignited. The main goal of the smoke chamber test was to keep the aerosol concentration uniform for an extended period, allowing the temperature influence of the dispersed particles on the screening process to be observed. The screening goal will be met if a higher concentration of aerosol maintains a temperature above the target temperature. As a result, we can mention that the IR screening time is inversely proportional to the cooling time of the particles below the target temperature. The screening times obtained demonstrate the effect of each mixture's thermodynamic parameters as well as the loading form. The difference in screening times (ST) obtained for _MWIR_ and _LWIR_ was due to the different performance characteristics of the two systems working in different spectra. Thermal equipment with a cooling system that operates between 3-5 \(\upmu\)m outperforms equipment without a cooling system that operates between 8-14 \(\upmu\)m. To write the screening time equation in IR, only the results obtained for the tests five to eight from Table 3 (PC2-PC3) were considered, because the variation of their parameters as a function of time remained constant. Finding the composition of PC1 (12% of the full charge), having the role of a rapid smoke generator of the cloud and the shortest screening time in IR compared to the PC2-PC3 mixture (88% of the full charge), was not considered necessary in the screening time calculation. To adjust the relation (10) with the experimental IR smoke time value it was necessary to introduce into the equation an empirically determined value: the proportionality coefficient \(f_{a}(\lambda)=0.775\cdot 10^{-\gamma}\) (s-m\({}^{2}\)/g) for _LWIR_ and \(f_{a}(\lambda)=0.875\cdot 10^{-\gamma}\) (s-m\({}^{2}\)/g) for _MWIR_. This coefficient is specific to RP-based compositions and depends on the screen cloud volume (\(V\)), where \(\gamma\) values are the following: \(\gamma=0\) for \(V<1\) m\({}^{3}\), \(\gamma=4\) for \(V<100\) m\({}^{3}\), \(\gamma=3\) for \(V>100\) m\({}^{3}\) and \(\gamma=2\) for \(V>1000\) m\({}^{3}\). Static and dynamic tests in various atmospheric conditions were used to determine the physical parameters of the screening cloud generated by a single SGD. The experimental screening time was measured under the given conditions, and the theoretical value was calculated based on the stated relation (11) and the established physical parameters, allowing the results to be compared and the error level to be ascertained. Table 4 contains these values as well as information about the testing conditions. To exemplify how the test was performed, Figure S9 (from Supplementary Materials) shows the images received for test number three at different times from the LWR optical sensors. The variety of values of screening times in IR and VIS was given by the influence of the meteorological parameters, which were constantly changing, and other natural factors in the atmosphere. Therefore, initially, the capacity of screening smoke was analyzed at a constant volume. The variation in screening time and covering surface was inversely proportional to the wind speed and SGD ignition point. As a result, the stated calculation relation yields the empirical screening time with a probability of trust greater than 50%, as shown in Table 4, with high credibility (98%) for wind velocities lower than 1 m/s.