Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 283 posts

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#211

Post by bobobob420 »

on_and_off wrote: post #128
rkagerer wrote: post #78

Even though I don't fly over people, I retrofitted a parachute onto my DJI drone just in case. It automatically deploys if the drone loses power or control. It doesn't impact flight characteristics or battery life by much. I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly int…

I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I would pay extra for a drone with such safeguards. just the prospect of less chances of ruining it would be enough. Similarly, eskates often have a regenerative battery charging while braking which is a great idea. but it also cannot handle charging while already full. So if you go down a slope while the board is full,…

I worked with a DJI matrice for some research projects so it is a larger one than most consumers but man those things are crazy dangerous. The propellors can cut off your fingers or cause serious damage if it hits someone. Not to mention a piece of metal falling out of the sky onto someone. I agree heavily they need more safety mechanisms

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#212

Post by megablast »

sokoloff wrote: post #197
mike_d wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is extremely hypocritical in any form. At the same time that the FAA is asking hobbyists to broadcast identification, they are modifying the rules to allow the rich and famous to change their identifiers at will preventing any sort of public accountability. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/

I’m a little surprised to see a “if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide” stance for private transport. What is the argument why their vehicles should be trackable?

Every vehicle should be tracked, especially cars that are responsible for so much injury and death.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#213

Post by enriquec »

kingaillas wrote: post #209
on_and_off wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I would pay extra for a drone with such safeguards. just the prospect of less chances of ruining it would be enough. Similarly, eskates often have a regenerative battery charging while braking which is a great idea. but it also cannot handle charging while already full. So if you go down a slope while the board is full,…

>I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I’m not... no safety is what the free market will deliver in the absence of regulations or liability or both.

then why were seatbelts and safety glass delivered by the free market? why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will? Why do they push updates that improve braking to customers that have already paid? Why does volvo specifically advertise their safety as a differentiator?

Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to others, the free market wouldn't reward it?

Your claim simply doesn't match reality.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#214

Post by datalus »

enriquec wrote: post #213
kingaillas wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I’m not... no safety is what the free market will deliver in the absence of regulations or liability or both.

then why were seatbelts and safety glass delivered by the free market? why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will? Why do they push updates that improve braking to customers that have already paid? Why does volvo specifically advertise their safety as a differentiator? Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to ot…

The free market didn't deliver seat belts. Regulation had to step in and Ralph Nader lobbied the US govt to get it passed.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#215

Post by hansvm »

bigbubba wrote: post #207
hansvm wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the hardware is already there for the regenerative brakes, and it allows the driver's muscle memory with respect to braking pressure to still apply in that edge case. I'd be surprised if it were simpler to make the friction brake fallback behave identically to the regenerative system when the battery is full. Maybe it's not worth the cost/complexity anyway, but the idea has merit somewhere in the design space…

If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.

Rheostatic and friction brakes both basically convert kinetic energy into heat. Is there some fundamental reason why a resistor would be harder to cool appropriately (low thermal conductivity comes to mind, though I'm pretty sure there are high performance ceramics used for both brakes and resistors -- my heuristics aren't really good enough to make a good guess for this one)?

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#216

Post by schoen »

bigbubba wrote: post #207
hansvm wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the hardware is already there for the regenerative brakes, and it allows the driver's muscle memory with respect to braking pressure to still apply in that edge case. I'd be surprised if it were simpler to make the friction brake fallback behave identically to the regenerative system when the battery is full. Maybe it's not worth the cost/complexity anyway, but the idea has merit somewhere in the design space…

If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.

Shouldn't the resistor having to end up dissipating exactly as much heat as the friction brakes do, by conservation of energy? Is there a reason that it's inherently mechanically harder for the resistor to dissipate that heat?

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#217

Post by bigbubba »

hansvm wrote: post #215
bigbubba wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.

Rheostatic and friction brakes both basically convert kinetic energy into heat. Is there some fundamental reason why a resistor would be harder to cool appropriately (low thermal conductivity comes to mind, though I'm pretty sure there are high performance ceramics used for both brakes and resistors -- my heuristics aren't really good enough to make a good guess for this one)?

Well, friction brakes are cooled by the airflow in the wheel wells. Perhaps you could aircool the resistors in the same place. The friction brakes would probably still be there though; would there be space for both?

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#218

Post by bananabreakfast »

enriquec wrote: post #213
kingaillas wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features. I’m not... no safety is what the free market will deliver in the absence of regulations or liability or both.

then why were seatbelts and safety glass delivered by the free market? why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will? Why do they push updates that improve braking to customers that have already paid? Why does volvo specifically advertise their safety as a differentiator? Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to ot…

You're actually proving yourself wrong here.

Regulation and regulation alone provided us with seatbelts and safety glass. Car companies even ran a massive lobbying and advertising campaign to convince America seatbelts weren't necessary with slogans calling drivers in car accidents "the nut behind the wheel" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/nut-behind-wheel/

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#219

Post by bananabreakfast »

xvector wrote: post #189
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teslas turn off regenerative breaking if you charge too far, but the car tells you that pretty prominently: however, the car handles very differently without Regen brakes.

This was the dumbest thing I experienced with my Model 3. I was expecting my regen brakes to work after I pulled out and I had to brake super hard after. Why can’t Tesla just give us an option to keep it consistent? I guess adding video games is more important.

Because that's not how batteries work.

Regen works because the batteries are being charged by the induction of the motors taking energy from the moving car. If the batteries are full they cannot take any more change and hence cannot draw power from the motion of the car.

What do you expect them to do? Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#220

Post by raisedbyninjas »

datalus wrote: post #214
enriquec wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then why were seatbelts and safety glass delivered by the free market? why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will? Why do they push updates that improve braking to customers that have already paid? Why does volvo specifically advertise their safety as a differentiator? Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to ot…

The free market didn't deliver seat belts. Regulation had to step in and Ralph Nader lobbied the US govt to get it passed.

Volvo sold the three point seatbelt for nine years before the US government required it.
Post reply on HN