371–380 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an avalanche you can't call anyone to save you. It will take them too long to reach you, and you'll suffocate before they can reach you. The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial. The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group. Source: Canadian ski patroller.
But you will have a video of your death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The popular theory is that it's a RTK differential GPS system: base station in the tripod transmitting correction information to the remote unit. The explains the warmup time, the accuracy, as well as the big price tag. http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how-doe...
This was my question on Stack Exchange! I was so angry because I was so curious how this worked, but I was downvoted to hell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One parachute-for-drone is already being Kickstarted (at least). But the issue is the effective minimum height for a parachute to be any use.
Perhaps an airbag underneath could deploy faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HyperBlimps are a lot safer, silent and mellower photography platforms than drones. Not quite as portable, and you need a tank of helium, of course. But equipped with solar panels they can stay up indefinitely, and built with transparent plastic they can be almost invisible in the sky. http://hyperblimp.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJYhTvBSu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7edXU401o
How do they handle wind?
>HOW DO THESE AIRSHIPS HANDLE IN WINDS?
>Hyperblimps, like traditional planes, can handle winds according to the speed of the ship. Our top speed as of July 10, 2010, is 40 mph, enabling a skilled operator to fly in winds of about 15 mph. We hope to be surpassing that speed soon. As for crosswinds, the ship is simply “crabbed,” just as a traditional plane is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the point you are trying to make. The problem I have with it is, it seems by your own admission, you're somewhat hypocritical. You'd like for someone else, a la the manufacturer, to provide a guarantee that you can be lazy and not take precautions so that you don't have to worry about a $1300 radio controlled vehicle that flies doesn't hurt someone else? I only mention the gener…
> I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors. Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved: People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulso…
These are cool, but... 1) 20 minutes is great if your sole purpose is getting video, but not if your sole purpose is surfing (let's say). A surf session might be 2 hours. Taking a break to put your dead flying camera away in the middle of it isn't ideal. Still there could be work around for this at some point. 2) Air space. The real problem. If you're surfing (again) or skiing you'll annoy everyone with the sound of…
This is really, really cool. That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had. There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice I said "drones of this size". While the propellers could still cause some damage, these kind of things aren't going to kill anybody, so let's not be overdramatic. As for potential dangers to other people, the solution to that is not a technical one, it is simply to not fly over or near to people. Just like we don't drive our cars on the sidewalk.
You don't think a device that weighs over 2lbs falling from 40' could kill someone? And that seems like it's being pretty generous. In most "quadcopter crash" videos I've seen on YouTube the drone was much higher. Sometimes even hundreds of meters.
[1] http://diaryofnumbers.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-by-coconut....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, sometimes we race with GPS to see how fast we can go. 80 km/h on a snowboard is fast .
That's interesting. Way back when I was a ski racing kid (about 14) we once did a speed test where we closed off 400m of one of the children's slopes and put a photocell at the bottom, and we would hit 90+ km/h on that thing. Mind you, this was in racing gear with racing skis, but that was a flat-ass slope. The fastest we ever clocked in a race was around 120, when I was 18, in the worldcup downhill course in Åre.