3 ms·

What Brown did with wireless energy transfer back in the 60's is very impressive. But calling that contraption a helicopter is generous at best. Calling it a UA

What Brown did with wireless energy transfer back in the 60's is very impressive. But calling that contraption a helicopter is generous at best. Calling it a UAV is downright misleading. The side-view picture in your write up looks almost like a helicopter. Look at a different angle though: http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/airplanes/images/models-in-industry-annual-edition-1969-aam-25.jpg http://www.airplanesandrockets.com/airplanes/images/models-i...

beambot 14y ago
The point was simply: it is possible to transfer meaningful amounts of power to an aerial platform to keep it aloft. LaserMotive still works in this space using directed laser light, funded (IIRC) by NASA. From a practical perspective, wireless power transfer (of pretty much every form) can have major drawbacks... but they're "rearranged" in the system to make 'em palatable. For example, the system as a whole may be incredibly lossy -- but that's predominantly at the ground station where you have ample access to power. Often, you're willing to accept 10% conversion efficiency when 100% of the converted power is useful to the target (think of RFID tags). In other cases, the benefits of near-field (short-range) inductive charging are (1) lack of wires and (2) more robust physical design (check out Sphero). TL;DR: there are circumstances where all these things make sense, but it's very application and system specific. As for your take on acronyms... UAV => Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Brown's contraption flew (albeit attached to guide wires for stability) without an occupant. What would you call it?
- asynchronous13 14y ago
  Absolutely! I didnt mean to derail from your main point. I've worked with LaserMotive so I'm reasonably familiar with their technology. You can make a ping-pong ball hover in an upward column of air, but I wouldn't call the ping-pong ball a UAV. It's just semantics, but I think the term implies a certain level of autonomy. Another example, there are many radio controlled aircraft in the hobby world that I would not call UAVs. One could take the same r/c vehicle, integrate an autopilot, and then UAV might be a more appropriate term for it.
  - mapt 14y ago
    I ended up formalizing it into a number of categories: http://www.dronepedia.com/index.php?title=Autopilot_concepts http://www.dronepedia.com/index.php?title=Autopilot_concepts In my view, anything with Return To Home level autopilot and above could reasonably be considered a UAV. This generally requires a 6-9DOF IMU, an altimeter, and a GPS receiver.

beambot 14y ago

The point was simply: it is possible to transfer meaningful amounts of power to an aerial platform to keep it aloft. LaserMotive still works in this space using directed laser light, funded (IIRC) by NASA. From a practical perspective, wireless power transfer (of pretty much every form) can have major drawbacks... but they're "rearranged" in the system to make 'em palatable. For example, the system as a whole may be incredibly lossy -- but that's predominantly at the ground station where you have ample access to power. Often, you're willing to accept 10% conversion efficiency when 100% of the converted power is useful to the target (think of RFID tags). In other cases, the benefits of near-field (short-range) inductive charging are (1) lack of wires and (2) more robust physical design (check out Sphero). TL;DR: there are circumstances where all these things make sense, but it's very application and system specific. As for your take on acronyms... UAV => Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Brown's contraption flew (albeit attached to guide wires for stability) without an occupant. What would you call it?

asynchronous13 14y ago
Absolutely! I didnt mean to derail from your main point. I've worked with LaserMotive so I'm reasonably familiar with their technology. You can make a ping-pong ball hover in an upward column of air, but I wouldn't call the ping-pong ball a UAV. It's just semantics, but I think the term implies a certain level of autonomy. Another example, there are many radio controlled aircraft in the hobby world that I would not call UAVs. One could take the same r/c vehicle, integrate an autopilot, and then UAV might be a more appropriate term for it.
- mapt 14y ago
  I ended up formalizing it into a number of categories: http://www.dronepedia.com/index.php?title=Autopilot_concepts http://www.dronepedia.com/index.php?title=Autopilot_concepts In my view, anything with Return To Home level autopilot and above could reasonably be considered a UAV. This generally requires a 6-9DOF IMU, an altimeter, and a GPS receiver.