General > General Technical Chat
Is Arduino killing the electronic hobby?
<< < (14/31) > >>
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: james_s on June 23, 2021, 06:16:03 pm ---The hard kill should be a very last resort, prior to that if the signal is lost the craft should attempt a controlled landing.

--- End quote ---
I fully agree.

How to shut down in the case of unrecoverable failure is a complicated matter.
You just do not make such an emergency shut down dependent on transmitting a separate signal like the designers of that craft did; you need to detect the failure in the first place and not just ignore any failures and trust a separate signal.

It is important to realize that in that crash case, the craft was basically designed to completely ignore loss of communications, and only had a kill switch of some sort that relied on a separately transmitted signal.  That's what the report states, anyway.

Furthermore, that signal was intended to energize a normally closed relay, to cut off power to specific parts of the craft.  A typical failure of such a relay means that even when a signal is transmitted, it would have no effect. At least a normally open relay would change state whenever powered on or off, and would be more likely to fail into the emergency state; a normally closed relay is more likely to fail into the closed state.  If the supply providing power to the normally closed relay failed, even when received, the kill signal would have zero effect.  This design is insane.

It is true, though, that I might attribute to malice something that was really only based on utter stupidity.  Just because I believe sheer stupidity is not enough and malice is required to design that drone as it was, does not make it true.
james_s:
I don't see any signs of malice at all, it is entirely believable that the people who designed it did what they did out of shear ignorance. They are apparently not trained engineers but hobbyists. For a typical hobbyist quadcopter the design while not great was adequate. It's normal to not have any sort of remote kill feature at all, however you can normally program the flight controller to reduce throttle if a loss of signal occurs.
2N3055:

--- Quote from: james_s on June 24, 2021, 06:05:01 am ---I don't see any signs of malice at all, it is entirely believable that the people who designed it did what they did out of shear ignorance. They are apparently not trained engineers but hobbyists. For a typical hobbyist quadcopter the design while not great was adequate. It's normal to not have any sort of remote kill feature at all, however you can normally program the flight controller to reduce throttle if a loss of signal occurs.

--- End quote ---

It was a scaled test of human carrying vehicle that weighs 100kg... There was nothing adequate on that idiotic design, except thrust...
It should have been hard configured to land autonomously if it looses the signal, and all communication must have been two way with transaction confirmation...
And that is just plain common sense, nothing advanced or "professional" about that way of thinking.
james_s:

--- Quote from: 2N3055 on June 24, 2021, 08:07:08 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on June 24, 2021, 06:05:01 am ---I don't see any signs of malice at all, it is entirely believable that the people who designed it did what they did out of shear ignorance. They are apparently not trained engineers but hobbyists. For a typical hobbyist quadcopter the design while not great was adequate. It's normal to not have any sort of remote kill feature at all, however you can normally program the flight controller to reduce throttle if a loss of signal occurs.

--- End quote ---

It was a scaled test of human carrying vehicle that weighs 100kg... There was nothing adequate on that idiotic design, except thrust...
It should have been hard configured to land autonomously if it looses the signal, and all communication must have been two way with transaction confirmation...
And that is just plain common sense, nothing advanced or "professional" about that way of thinking.

--- End quote ---

I said the design was adequate for a hobbyist quadcopter, NOT for this much larger aircraft. The whole project has the appearance of a group of average drone hobbyists who naively thought they could just scale up a toy quadcopter and call it good. Obviously this is not true.
RoGeorge:

--- Quote from: george.b on June 20, 2021, 06:56:56 am ---Case in point: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/602bb22f8fa8f50388f9f000/Alauda_Airspeeder_Mk_II_UAS_reg_na_03-21.pdf
--- End quote ---

What I don't understand from that document is why all the recommended measures were keep talking about a cap of 80 Joules battery, while the incident was about a 100kg drone.

A CR2032 coin battery holds about 2000-3000 Joules.
What kind of drone can fly with 80 Joules?   :-//
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod