3 ms·

Similar design: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/flying-robots-stay-stable-with-just-one-motor http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/dro

• lucb1e 9y ago
  > My understanding is that it doesn't need to be "revolutionary" to be patentable. How would one measure revolutionaryness anyway? If it hasn't been done before and isn't just a variation on an existing thing (e.g. sports car but in green), that sounds like a good enough thing to award a patent for. Which is not to say that I agree about all the details, e.g. that software should or shouldn't be patentable, or how long a patent should be valid, etc. Just that one can get a patent for something that's not "revolutionary" makes sense.
  • georgemcbay 9y ago
    Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you strongly, he was quite clear that he believed patents should require a very strong degree of novelty and differentiation: See, for example: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... Sadly we've strayed very far away from how Jefferson thought patents should work in this age of "This thing... but on a computer" patents.
• ansible 9y ago
  I like this design better. The mechanical linkage isn't complicated. Balanced two-bladed rotors. You're only sending minor impulses at certain points in the rotation rather than changing the speed significantly.