Page 1 of 1

1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:34 am UTC
by Linux0s
Image

Title Text: I always have to turn off nature documentaries when they show these scenes.

But the raising their young scenes are so cute.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:13 am UTC
by rhomboidal
I took my quadcopter right from its parents' nest. I'm not proud, but they can really be pricey.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:14 am UTC
by orthogon
I reckon there would be less opposition to drone strikes if they actually swooped down on their prey and carried them off. Even better if the IS leader or whoever is deposited in The Hague to stand trial.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:48 am UTC
by suso
I think Randall got a quadcopter recently. I think Randall also knows that we all got quadcopters recently. :twisted:

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:51 am UTC
by suso
Obviously, I missed the animated avatar train.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:32 pm UTC
by cellocgw
So... is BHG operating that flock (fleet?) of 4-copters?

Meanwhile, back at the design factory, work is underway to figure out how to get quadcopters to be silent. Maybe they need to replace the rotary wings with a structure that rotates at 100kHz, so well out of aural range.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:59 pm UTC
by Echo244
cellocgw wrote:So... is BHG operating that flock (fleet?) of 4-copters?


Nah. They found out what their colleagues were being sent to do in "Hoverboard", and have rebelled.

Speaking of Hoverboard, is that the last time we saw a black hat, never mind BHG? Is xkcd turning less evil?

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:15 pm UTC
by eviloatmeal
cellocgw wrote:Maybe they need to replace the rotary wings with a structure that rotates at 100kHz, so well out of aural range.

You just need bigger, multier-bladed props.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:45 pm UTC
by cellocgw
eviloatmeal wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Maybe they need to replace the rotary wings with a structure that rotates at 100kHz, so well out of aural range.

You just need bigger, multier-bladed props.


Maybe... Tho' before looking at the vid, your "bigger,multier..." made me think more of silent submarine drives

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:58 pm UTC
by eviloatmeal
Makes sense. Sub props are designed for quietness, and are larger than quads (not to mention quad props), and also have a larger multitude of blades.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:27 pm UTC
by Heimhenge
cellocgw wrote:Maybe... Tho' before looking at the vid, your "bigger,multier..." made me think more of silent submarine drives


I thought that link was gonna take me to a page about submarine tunnel drives (as in Red October). Now that would make for a quieter quad. But in air you'd need essentially an ion drive. Wait ... we have those. Why isn't anyone making those kind of silent flying machines? Is it a power to weight thing?

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:16 pm UTC
by Envelope Generator
Strange things that you can't watch in a nature show listing time! I always have to look away when the camera view is partially underwater and partially above the surface because it makes my eyes water.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:44 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
cellocgw wrote:So... is BHG operating that flock (fleet?) of 4-copters?

Meanwhile, back at the design factory, work is underway to figure out how to get quadcopters to be silent. Maybe they need to replace the rotary wings with a structure that rotates at 100kHz, so well out of aural range.


I only count 3 copters in the abducting flight(? wing?)

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:52 pm UTC
by Envelope Generator
rmsgrey wrote:
cellocgw wrote:So... is BHG operating that flock (fleet?) of 4-copters?

Meanwhile, back at the design factory, work is underway to figure out how to get quadcopters to be silent. Maybe they need to replace the rotary wings with a structure that rotates at 100kHz, so well out of aural range.


I only count 3 copters in the abducting flight(? wing?)


Also pretty sure 100kHz revs are going to cause a sonic boom, so well inside aural range.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:59 pm UTC
by yakkoTDI
suso wrote:I think Randall got a quadcopter recently. I think Randall also knows that some of us got quadcopters recently. :twisted:


FTFY

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:20 pm UTC
by ps.02
So this comic is set in Soviet Russia, where quadcopters fly you?

Also, that seems like a lot of payload, but then, stick figures probably don't actually weigh much.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:16 pm UTC
by Korbl
How many quadcoptors of what size would I need to make a flightsuit capable of lifting 400 lbs?

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:25 pm UTC
by SDK
While accounting for the tyranny of the quadcopter equation?

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:20 pm UTC
by MrT2
Quietness for submarine propellers is based on avoiding cavitation (formation of gas bubbles), for drone propellers the noise is vibration, air friction and from the electric motor directly, more and smaller propellers would seem to be a better solution than fewer and bigger.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:42 am UTC
by da Doctah
So take "more and smaller" to the extreme, and you've got a suit embedded with nanodrones. Too small to be seen individually with the naked eye, but the suit as a whole appears to, basically, levitate.

Then send one to William Katt, with an instruction book which he'll promptly lose.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:00 am UTC
by Korbl
Alternatively, using a watts/kg list I found on stackexchange, I could make a flight suit with some quadcopters using this 6500w motor... I think 3 quadcopters would nearly do it for "3D Acrobatics." Of course, that would run about $6000 for the motors alone...

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:12 am UTC
by RogueCynic
Please tell me someone is working on self-piloting quadcoptors. Also, why are none of my passwords working?

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:44 pm UTC
by ShuRugal
RogueCynic wrote:Please tell me someone is working on self-piloting quadcoptors. Also, why are none of my passwords working?


working on? they've been available for years...

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:59 pm UTC
by Aiwendil
I wonder if they'll learn in quadcopter school that the root for 'wing' is 'opter', not 'copter', or that 'quad' is Latin while 'opter' is Greek.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 3:44 am UTC
by Flumble
Aiwendil wrote:I wonder if they'll learn in quadcopter school that the root for 'wing' is 'opter', not 'copter', or that 'quad' is Latin while 'opter' is Greek.

surely you meant to say "pter", right?
Though 'tetrapter' sounds a lot less fancy than 'quadcopter'. Then again, staying closer to the original word for 4, tettareptor sounds like raptor. Rapid, (formerly) featherless beasts the size of a turkey.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:33 pm UTC
by Aiwendil
Flumble wrote:
Aiwendil wrote:I wonder if they'll learn in quadcopter school that the root for 'wing' is 'opter', not 'copter', or that 'quad' is Latin while 'opter' is Greek.

surely you meant to say "pter", right?
Though 'tetrapter' sounds a lot less fancy than 'quadcopter'. Then again, staying closer to the original word for 4, tettareptor sounds like raptor. Rapid, (formerly) featherless beasts the size of a turkey.


I have, of course, succumbed to the law of physics stating that anyone posting a grammatical correction will make a grammatical mistake themselves.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:16 am UTC
by xtifr
Aiwendil wrote:I wonder if they'll learn in quadcopter school that the root for 'wing' is 'opter', not 'copter', or that 'quad' is Latin while 'opter' is Greek.

You're bordering1 on the Etymological fallacy: confusing "derives from" with "means".

The word "helicopter" derives from the Greek roots helico and pter, but it doesn't mean helical wing. It means thing-that-flies-with-rotating-blades. And "copter" is short for "helicopter" in English, no matter what the roots of the latter word might be. And "quad" is an English prefix! (Albeit derived from Latin.) So, mixing the English prefix "quad" with the English word/suffix "copter" is perfectly standard.

Likewise, "television" is not mixing Latin and Greek. It's a Greek prefix (not really formally adopted into English yet, by itself) attached to an English word. Which is still a bit odd, but we have to allow inventors their foibles. Likewise, "megatsunami" is not a mixture of Latin and Japanese. It's a standard English prefix attached to a (rapidly-becoming) standard English word.

1 Of course, you're correct (more-or-less) about the derivations, and they might learn about that in quadcopter school. But that doesn't mean the word is "wrong." I realize you didn't say it was, but in a later comment, you made some mention of posting "a grammatical correction". What you posted was no such thing. Though it was an interesting comment. ;)

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:58 am UTC
by PM 2Ring
Aiwendil wrote:I have, of course, succumbed to the law of physics stating that anyone posting a grammatical correction will make a grammatical mistake themselves.

On another forum I frequent we call it the Law of Recursive Pedantry. Wikipedia says it's Muphry's Law, along with a few other terms.

Also,
Erin McKean wrote:Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling or typographical error.

and it's thus sometimes referred to as McKean's Law.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:18 am UTC
by da Doctah
xtifr wrote:The word "helicopter" derives from the Greek roots helico and pter, but it doesn't mean helical wing. It means thing-that-flies-with-rotating-blades. And "copter" is short for "helicopter" in English, no matter what the roots of the latter word might be. And "quad" is an English prefix! (Albeit derived from Latin.) So, mixing the English prefix "quad" with the English word/suffix "copter" is perfectly standard.


Still, if you want linguistic purity, you could either go with "tetrapter" (or my preference "tesserapter"), or with the alternative "quadropennae".

I always found it interesting that the name of Tokyo's largest airport is "Haneda", where "hane" is the Japanese word for "wing".

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:55 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Reqlly though, it's not a four-winged thing, its a thing with four seta of spinning wings, so you still need that 'helico-' in there any way you spin it. "Tetrahelicopter".

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:50 pm UTC
by Znirk
ps.02 wrote:So this comic is set in Soviet Russia, where quadcopters fly you?

Also, that seems like a lot of payload, but then, stick figures probably don't actually weigh much.

Nah, xkcd just has unusually powerful ptera in general (see http://xkcd.com/1598/)

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:22 pm UTC
by The Moomin
Znirk wrote:
ps.02 wrote:So this comic is set in Soviet Russia, where quadcopters fly you?

Also, that seems like a lot of payload, but then, stick figures probably don't actually weigh much.

Nah, xkcd just has unusually powerful ptera in general (see http://xkcd.com/1598/)


Would a denser atmosphere increase the lift generated?

XKCD could exist in a world of denser atmosphere where the pressure has compressed them to stick people.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:07 pm UTC
by Mikeski
The Moomin wrote:Would a denser atmosphere increase the lift generated?

Yup, directly proportional. In the algebraic form of the lift equation anyway. (I don't speak Navier-Stokes.)

You also get the benefit of buoyancy in a denser atmosphere (especially at the density differences you're implying below). Not only do you get more lift, but you need less. Something with the "wing" area of a human can "fly" in water (and more easily in denser salt water than in fresh water.)

XKCD could exist in a world of denser atmosphere where the pressure has compressed them to stick people.

Great, now I'm viewing XKCD characters as insects; all their internal organs in their heads with a few spindly limbs hanging off the bottom.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:37 pm UTC
by Neil_Boekend
They are only able to carry their heads due to the increased buoyancy.

Re: 1630: "Quadcopter"

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:08 pm UTC
by SawGani
Can you please share the details of the Quadcopeters you are discussing here?
Which MCU based they are?
Also what are the specifications of the other hardware components?
Can you please tell me the all details here?