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

Lily – Drone camera

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 496 posts

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#421

Post by necrodawg »

windexh8er wrote: post #285
bglazer wrote: post #131

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…

As someone who has flown RC drones and heli for the better part of 5+ years now I generally find that there are 3 camps: 1) people who have never flown and assume the worst and often want unrealistic "guarantees" (see above), 2) those who fly, fly often and fly as safe as can be "guaranteed", 3) those who fly in an unsafe manner due to inexperience or just general carelessness. I've always tried to fly responsibly at…

I'll take a drone that flies itself over one controlled by a human any day. Humans suck at this stuff. It should be possible to make it very safe if it's automated.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#422

Post by [deleted] »

flexie wrote: post #117
josefresco wrote: post #19

I wonder how this handles obstacles. The trails we ride are not wide open ski slopes, or rivers, often times they are tight/wooded trails. Would like to see how it handles "close following". Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.

I see it the other way around. This could help humans handle obstacles, at least if it could launch itself automatically and when it's a bit smaller so that it's really easy to carry around. African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time the…

[deleted]

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#425

Post by atmosx »

andyl wrote: post #386
bglazer wrote: post #131

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…

"I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees" 99.9999% Things are amazing, and nobody's happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E

Nobody is happy because these things mean nothing, honestly. Who cares about the credit card(s)?

There are people starving to death on the one side of the planet while there are others who don't know what to do with their money on the other. I'm not saying everyone should be driving Ferrari's but in 2015 there shouldn't be people without shelter, food or basic medical safety lying around. If we as a society solve THIS problem then, everybody will much more happy than it is today.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#426

Post by noja »

cpks wrote: post #300
bglazer wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into camp 3. I have a DJI Phantom that I crashed into my neighbor's yard due to my own incompetence and inexperience. I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers. Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people fly…

You can buy a gun. You can still (barely) buy model rockets. You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken). I want proper insurance, liability, etc. when things fail, and good risk management. I don't want stupid safety.

> You can buy a gun.

In the US maybe, I can't.

> You can still (barely) buy model rockets.

In the US maybe, I can't.

> You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken).

In the US maybe. Safety glass is really not very dangerous, and it's standard.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#427

Post by mapt »

mapt wrote: post #420
dba7dba wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe NYT carried an article last year about an RC chopper flyer who got beheaded by his own chopper's main rotor. It happened in the Central Park. It was a large RC Chopper and something went wrong and he ended up get killed. He apparently liked to do some dangerous stunts apparently... However I would think these drones' propellers are shorter thus less dangerous? Any ideas?

He was flying a Trex 700-class stunt helicopter, with a large 1.6m diameter single rotor. He was using it for complex aerobatics - high accelerations, very high turn rates, very little respect for the gravity vector. You can't do these sorts of things at all with human-sized helicopters - they're not maneuverable enough. In fact, the increase in maneuverability as high-powered single-rotor helicopters scale down is a…

So: Basically, he was doing something tantamount to juggling axes as a hobby, completely unlike FPV quadrotors. Deft skill he may display for a while, but nobody should be particularly shocked when conscious risk-taking like that ends in tragedy.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#428

Post by medecau »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #401
gridspy wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident it would destroy the jet engine. The shrapnel from the drone is likely to blow the very tight tolerances between the compressor blades and the body of the jet engine, causing jams.

Yet somehow it survives ice.

Drones are not made of ice.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#429

Post by mapt »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #407
timmaah wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery is not removable.

That's horrible and possibly a deciding factor. I guess it had to be done in order to make it waterproof.

I concur, you really need the possibility of multiple battery loads in order to get full value out of this stuff.

Can you do non-conductive power transmission at reasonable weights and efficiencies? I mean, my toothbrush does it, but I can't speak to the charging rate.

Post reply on HN