Sprite: a different drone(kickstarter.com)
kickstarter.com
Sprite: a different drone
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ascentaerosystems/sprite-the-portable-rugged-totally-different-small
18 comments
Add a few things like top speed, range, flight time, tracking method, and you've got yourself a nice popular webpage/blog post.
Too many pre-production products now... I'm eagerly awaiting the day when Wirecutter just has a "Best Autonomous Selfie Drone" category though... :)
This is a great list -- thanks for posting it. FYI it looks like the IRIS+ is now $599, and the IRIS Solo is $999 and is scheduled to ship next month: https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
For general use, is there a compelling reason to wait until this fall or next year instead of buying the current IRIS now or the new one next month? The SPRITE looks nicely ruggedized and compact, but that's not a big a concern for me.
(I have no affiliation with any of the autonomous camera drone makers. But unless there's a compelling reason I prefer to avoid the risk of having a promised project fail to ship.)
For general use, is there a compelling reason to wait until this fall or next year instead of buying the current IRIS now or the new one next month? The SPRITE looks nicely ruggedized and compact, but that's not a big a concern for me.
(I have no affiliation with any of the autonomous camera drone makers. But unless there's a compelling reason I prefer to avoid the risk of having a promised project fail to ship.)
Correction: SPRITE comes with an HD camera and gimbal AND is compatible with GoPro models!
You could add nixie (flynixie.com) to that list.
You need to add the 3DR Solo to the list at $999.
My one concern with all these new drones that keep popping up is the flight duration. This one is among the worst I've seen: "... flight endurance, which is currently around 12 minutes". Others in the market don't seem to be much better, clocking around 30mins - 1hr per flight.
Are any of these able to fly a preset, waypoint path for two or more hours? I don't want to be thinking about the landing just as soon as it gets up in the air.
Are any of these able to fly a preset, waypoint path for two or more hours? I don't want to be thinking about the landing just as soon as it gets up in the air.
Nope. We're pretty much limited by battery technology on that front; you need bigger batteries to provide more power, but those bigger batteries mean more weight, which means more power needed just to stay aloft. For a battery powered multicopter, I think an hour or so is about the highest you can get (I don't think I've seen any that claim over 40 minutes), and as you point out, most drones are closer to the 15 to 20 minute range.
Of course, there are other designs like fixed wing planes which can be a bit more efficient though more complicated to navigate in confined spaces and without the ability to hover, and you can use internal combustion engines which can get you much longer flight times due to the higher energy density of their power source. But I don't think you're going to find any of the affordable, battery powered multicopters that get you anything over an hour (and even then, I would set my expectations at more like a half-hour for anything affordable in realistic conditions).
Of course, there are other designs like fixed wing planes which can be a bit more efficient though more complicated to navigate in confined spaces and without the ability to hover, and you can use internal combustion engines which can get you much longer flight times due to the higher energy density of their power source. But I don't think you're going to find any of the affordable, battery powered multicopters that get you anything over an hour (and even then, I would set my expectations at more like a half-hour for anything affordable in realistic conditions).
Wireless power transmission via laser:
> Stalker is a small, silent UAS used by Special Operations Forces since 2006 to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. In a recent wind tunnel test, the UAS demonstrated 48 hours of continuous flight powered by this innovative laser system.
> Demonstrated net positive power to Stalker in flight, at ranges up to 600 meters.
> The beam director tracked the receiver for long periods, with centimeter accuracy at 500 meters, despite turbulence and aircraft maneuvers.
http://lasermotive.com/products/uav-power-links/
Note they first successfully demonstrated this outdoors 3 years ago: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/au...
> Stalker is a small, silent UAS used by Special Operations Forces since 2006 to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. In a recent wind tunnel test, the UAS demonstrated 48 hours of continuous flight powered by this innovative laser system.
> Demonstrated net positive power to Stalker in flight, at ranges up to 600 meters.
> The beam director tracked the receiver for long periods, with centimeter accuracy at 500 meters, despite turbulence and aircraft maneuvers.
http://lasermotive.com/products/uav-power-links/
Note they first successfully demonstrated this outdoors 3 years ago: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/au...
This is genuinely awesome and I'm excited to see it's applications in future products.
HOWEVER: I don't think it's ready for 'consumer grade' things just yet. It's one thing to have it in a controlled wind-tunnel for 48 hours, it's completely different than having it outside and in variable wind, dirt, dust, other objects, etc.
Honestly, I can't imagine my luddite brother or father wrapping their minds around this just yet: "So, I point the laser at this? Why can't I just use a flashlight? Can I use the laser to charge my phone?"
HOWEVER: I don't think it's ready for 'consumer grade' things just yet. It's one thing to have it in a controlled wind-tunnel for 48 hours, it's completely different than having it outside and in variable wind, dirt, dust, other objects, etc.
Honestly, I can't imagine my luddite brother or father wrapping their minds around this just yet: "So, I point the laser at this? Why can't I just use a flashlight? Can I use the laser to charge my phone?"
How stealthy is this thing if it has a giant laser pointed at it the whole time?
We have this thing called infrared. The military is quite fond of it already for targeting lasers.
Beam coherence and illumination aren't issues at the distance and power levels used.
Huh.
That's actually really interesting.
I have this vision of a large mother UAV with long loiter times that can laser target micro UAVs at much lower altitudes.
That's actually really interesting.
I have this vision of a large mother UAV with long loiter times that can laser target micro UAVs at much lower altitudes.
Definitely feasible if your mothership is a dirigible using gas turbines to power itself, using laser spotbeams to target drones below for providing remote power.
Yes, another approach is to not have to carry all of the energy with you. Solar charging is another possibility.
I don't know that the energy density of solar cells work for their weight. Electric motors require a pretty high current. Even if you are supplementing another power source, I think you'll still be losing more than you are gaining for that application. You are probably fine with fixed wing, but multicopter designs will draw significantly more power.
I'd assume he's referring to having solar charging stations at the way-points.
I wonder why more remote-operated drones like this aren't being designed with gasoline motors rather than electric. I remember flying all kinds of tiny gas-powered RC planes as a kid, and it's not obvious to me that the benefits of electric out-weigh the multiple-orders-of-magnitude reduction in flight time. In fact, what are the principal advantages of electric UAVs over gas-powered?
Most quadcopters aren't gas-powered because they rely on rapidly adjusting the speed of brushless motors attached to fixed-pitch props to control their attitude.
A few hobbyists have built gas quads with variable-pitch rotors, but the amount of mechanical complexity and hassle involved makes a similar nitro-powered single-rotor helicopter more appealing for most hobby applications (stunt flying etc).
As more novel designs that don't rely on precise motor speed control (for example, this one) come into play, I think gas motors will make a minor resurgence as people rediscover the energy density (and therefore flight time) they can achieve.
However, for most hobbyists, electric just makes more sense. It's usually quieter, works indoors, is generally a lot less of a pain in the ass to deal with (no need for starters, glow plugs, choke, adjusting mixture, engine maintenance, etc.), and is usually less heavily regulated.
A few hobbyists have built gas quads with variable-pitch rotors, but the amount of mechanical complexity and hassle involved makes a similar nitro-powered single-rotor helicopter more appealing for most hobby applications (stunt flying etc).
As more novel designs that don't rely on precise motor speed control (for example, this one) come into play, I think gas motors will make a minor resurgence as people rediscover the energy density (and therefore flight time) they can achieve.
However, for most hobbyists, electric just makes more sense. It's usually quieter, works indoors, is generally a lot less of a pain in the ass to deal with (no need for starters, glow plugs, choke, adjusting mixture, engine maintenance, etc.), and is usually less heavily regulated.
Why not hybrid? Have an onboard gas generator to recharge the batteries. As soon as the gas runs out, the drone has X min of battery flight time left to get back to solid ground. No need for mechanical complexity.
There's an MIT spinoff called Top Flight that was working on a hybrid quadcopter, IIRC. I think the main reason you don't see them in the hobbyist space is size floor (you need a pretty big machine to make the weight overhead of the motor, generator, and charge circuitry work out) and money.
Hell, you could have a small buffer ultra capacitor or battery providing the motors with electricity while a gas engine at constant RPM recharges it. The whole system would have to have a very high conversion efficiency though...
Gas engines could be coupled with one or several CVT transmissions?
I think you could just use the simplest form of CVT: a variable-diameter pulley under each rotor. You'd still pay a pretty big cost in terms of mechanical complexity, though, which makes the swashplate system more appealing as offers a lot of additional advantages in terms of thrust vectoring.
For multirotors it's just very difficult and impractical to power them with gasoline engines. If you were to build a gas powered multirotor, you'd have to have a central engine connected to each motor by means of some complicated mechanical linkage. This would also mean you could no longer control the speeds of the motors individually, so you'd have to achieve lateral movement by pitching the propellers, like on a helicopter. All these things mean that it simply doesn't make sense to build a non-electric multirotor, it'd be massively expensive and inefficient you'd be better off going back to a helicopter.
In terms of fixed wing drones, the benefit of electric over gas is mainly ease of use I believe. It's a lot simpler for someone to charge a battery and just plug it in than it is for them to fill up canisters, refuel the engine and cope with the complexities of tweaking and starting an engine. That extra effort and learning curve isn't worth it for the slightly longer slight time.
For aerial mapping the go-to option is normally fixed wing drones, they can easily achieve 30-40 minutes of flight time and this is normally enough for those kind of applications.
In terms of fixed wing drones, the benefit of electric over gas is mainly ease of use I believe. It's a lot simpler for someone to charge a battery and just plug it in than it is for them to fill up canisters, refuel the engine and cope with the complexities of tweaking and starting an engine. That extra effort and learning curve isn't worth it for the slightly longer slight time.
For aerial mapping the go-to option is normally fixed wing drones, they can easily achieve 30-40 minutes of flight time and this is normally enough for those kind of applications.
For a coaxial, cyclic controlled UAV like this you could convert to using a fixed RPM gas engine though.
Control and cost.
PWM motors can control their rotation very precisely unlike IC motors. That is one reason you see multicopter designs nowadays. You can quickly alter the torque. I didn't see how this design alters pitch or roll, but I know there were some coaxial experimental designs that can alter the torque in a single rotation to affect those axis. That is simply not possible with something powered by burning fuel. It might be possible to have a mixed system, using an internal combustion engine for primary lift and electronically controlled steering, but that would be a more complex system and the benefit isn't abundantly clear.
PWM motors can control their rotation very precisely unlike IC motors. That is one reason you see multicopter designs nowadays. You can quickly alter the torque. I didn't see how this design alters pitch or roll, but I know there were some coaxial experimental designs that can alter the torque in a single rotation to affect those axis. That is simply not possible with something powered by burning fuel. It might be possible to have a mixed system, using an internal combustion engine for primary lift and electronically controlled steering, but that would be a more complex system and the benefit isn't abundantly clear.
Size, noise, maintenance, predictability, simplicity, cost. Haven't seen a power/weight trade study of batteries vs engine+generator+fuel, but it may be closer than you think. There's a lot involved in a ICE power plant, and even if it did win, it'd have to be a pretty big machine compared to your average multirotor due to minimum scale on gasoline engine components.
There might be a market for large endurance multirotors, but apparently it's not obviously attractive.
There might be a market for large endurance multirotors, but apparently it's not obviously attractive.
Price and safety, I would bet.
The solution is to allow the drone to hot-swap the battery. You would put a bunch of batteries along the drone's planned flight path and it would automatically detect these batteries and replace its own emptying battery with the one placed on the ground.
Potentially, if autonomous drones really take off, there could be a countrywide system of solar-powered charging stations that would supply drones with standardized batteries. Such infrastructure would be almost completely self-sufficient and allow drones to fly any distance.
In fact, this model also works for electric cars, manned or unmanned. There's no reason why Tesla Supercharger stations cannot provide a fully charged battery to swap into your car. Of course you'd have to deposit your own battery first so that you cannot get a battery for free.
Potentially, if autonomous drones really take off, there could be a countrywide system of solar-powered charging stations that would supply drones with standardized batteries. Such infrastructure would be almost completely self-sufficient and allow drones to fly any distance.
In fact, this model also works for electric cars, manned or unmanned. There's no reason why Tesla Supercharger stations cannot provide a fully charged battery to swap into your car. Of course you'd have to deposit your own battery first so that you cannot get a battery for free.
If you need long endurance, then you likely need a fixed-wing system. In general, the efficiency goes: fixed wing > complex single rotor (helicopter) > multi-rotor (e.g. quadcoptor)
Don't forget lighter than air craft. A GoPro + weather balloon is pretty efficient.
At the expense of maneuverability. It's worth mentioning that this is the trade off here.
From least to most maneuverable:
Weather balloon -> Fixed Wing -> Single rotor -> Multirotor
From least to most maneuverable:
Weather balloon -> Fixed Wing -> Single rotor -> Multirotor
Definitely. Now I want to build a blimp drone or a blone if you will just to give it a try :). I imagine a toroidal shaped ballon with a small propeller in the middle might actually do fairly well and would be less susceptible to sideways wind than a balloon.
This was posted in the discussion when the Lily was announced:
http://hyperblimp.com/
http://hyperblimp.com/
Yes, definitely, but scaling volume to carry payload mass becomes inconvenient for casual use quickly.
Cheating the calcs a bit and using the table here: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html A 3.5oz (~99gram) Go pro needs at least a 22in diameter spherical ballon filled with Helium. And unless you're ok with tethered use, you need to dedicate some power & mass to pointing & station keeping which increases the volume even more. For every gram of other capability you add, you're adding another liter of gas.
Cheating the calcs a bit and using the table here: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/lift.html A 3.5oz (~99gram) Go pro needs at least a 22in diameter spherical ballon filled with Helium. And unless you're ok with tethered use, you need to dedicate some power & mass to pointing & station keeping which increases the volume even more. For every gram of other capability you add, you're adding another liter of gas.
So you need roughly 100 grams of payload + probably another 100 or so grams of mounting gear (gimbals, etc.) + directional propellers + battery packs which likely total out at around a kilogram. So that's roughly a 1.2 meter diameter balloon or 950 liters. That's fairly large, I agree.
Do you know if a hybrid has been done where you have a multi-rotor assisted by TLA ballast?
Do you know if a hybrid has been done where you have a multi-rotor assisted by TLA ballast?
None that I know of, but multi-rotors lateral flight authority is often weak vs winds. So, I would worry that a big gas bladder might strongly exacerbate that by requiring a much higher capability vs wind. But then again, a hybrid might not be a 'conventional' multi-rotor config.
The problem is you're relying solely on the propellers for lift. Batteries are heavy and only store a small amount of electricity. You need to attach a helium balloon or some other means of lift that doesn't require electricity.
Some sort of miniaturized hot-air system might work as well.
Some sort of miniaturized hot-air system might work as well.
Might be an interesting idea for a UAV like this to include a mount point at the top where you could attach a helium balloon that could carry some percentage of the weight less that 100%. That reduction in weight would translate into longer run-time. Of course it also would reduce maneuverability.
I think of most of the development of drones as being what Chris Anderson calls "the peace dividend of the smartphone wars" [0]. Most of the components -- batteries, processors, radios, cameras -- have benefited enormously from the billion smartphones made every year. Unfortunately, of that list, batteries have improved the least.
[0] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/29/epiphanies-from-chris-an...
[0] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/29/epiphanies-from-chris-an...
The limit is the batteries mostly. You won't be seeing that sort of performance from an electrically powered helicopter without some drastic improvements in battery power density.
Couldn't you add more battery? Sure it's more weight but I'd imagine more battery would result in slightly higher power output and an increase in flight duration. The added weight would help against wind gusts too.
Let's work out how that would work, in a simplified model of the world.
Let's say you have a 1000mAh battery at 10V that weighs 100g (these numbers have all been made round for purposes of easier arithmetic). Everything else on your drone is weightless, and your motors have perfect efficiency. To keep this aloft, you need to overcome 9.8 m/s^2 that is applied by Earth's gravity; but since we're simplifying things, let's just round that to 10 m/s^2. 10 m/s^2 * 100g is 1 N, which means it requires 1 W of power to keep that battery aloft (resist the force of gravity). 1Ah * 10 V = 10 Wh, so that means you could stay aloft for 10 h (remember, these numbers are unrealistic, we have ignored any kind of efficiency, or the weight of the rest of the drone, etc).
So, lets use two batteries. Now we have 20 Wh of energy available, but we're holding up 200g of battery, which requires 2 W of power to stay aloft, so again, we can stay aloft for just 10 h.
And remember, all of this was ignoring any notion of efficiency or the weight of any other part of the craft to support this. As you increase the weight, motors will need to get more powerful to be able to actually keep it aloft, which means they need to get bigger, which is extra weight that you need to support that isn't giving you any extra energy. So the real world is actually even worse than our idealized model; as you add on more battery, only a fraction of the increase in weight adds more energy, so you will actually see shorter flight times.
Now, of course, there are designs for which increasing the amount of battery can lead to increased flight times. If the power supplied by the motors is sufficient to sustain the extra weight, so they don't need to be scaled up, then increasing the amount of battery relative to the rest of the weight of the craft can lead to higher efficiency as there is less relative "dead weight" (weight besides the batteries, that is not carrying energy). But that can only take you so far, which is why the flight times of drones plateau at a certain point and you can't fix it by just adding more battery.
This is why you don't see electric helicopters carrying people. The energy to weight ratio for batteries is too low; only fossil fuels have a sufficient energy density.
Let's say you have a 1000mAh battery at 10V that weighs 100g (these numbers have all been made round for purposes of easier arithmetic). Everything else on your drone is weightless, and your motors have perfect efficiency. To keep this aloft, you need to overcome 9.8 m/s^2 that is applied by Earth's gravity; but since we're simplifying things, let's just round that to 10 m/s^2. 10 m/s^2 * 100g is 1 N, which means it requires 1 W of power to keep that battery aloft (resist the force of gravity). 1Ah * 10 V = 10 Wh, so that means you could stay aloft for 10 h (remember, these numbers are unrealistic, we have ignored any kind of efficiency, or the weight of the rest of the drone, etc).
So, lets use two batteries. Now we have 20 Wh of energy available, but we're holding up 200g of battery, which requires 2 W of power to stay aloft, so again, we can stay aloft for just 10 h.
And remember, all of this was ignoring any notion of efficiency or the weight of any other part of the craft to support this. As you increase the weight, motors will need to get more powerful to be able to actually keep it aloft, which means they need to get bigger, which is extra weight that you need to support that isn't giving you any extra energy. So the real world is actually even worse than our idealized model; as you add on more battery, only a fraction of the increase in weight adds more energy, so you will actually see shorter flight times.
Now, of course, there are designs for which increasing the amount of battery can lead to increased flight times. If the power supplied by the motors is sufficient to sustain the extra weight, so they don't need to be scaled up, then increasing the amount of battery relative to the rest of the weight of the craft can lead to higher efficiency as there is less relative "dead weight" (weight besides the batteries, that is not carrying energy). But that can only take you so far, which is why the flight times of drones plateau at a certain point and you can't fix it by just adding more battery.
This is why you don't see electric helicopters carrying people. The energy to weight ratio for batteries is too low; only fossil fuels have a sufficient energy density.
I agree with your general idea, more than half an hour is not posible with the current technology. But I think this conversion is wrong:
> let's just round that to 10 m/s^2. 10 m/s^2 100g is 1 N, which means it requires 1 W of power to keep that battery aloft*
To transform some force into power, you need to multiply it by a speed (m/s). My favorite example is that a brick resting on a table can "hover" without spending any power (for a weird definition of "hovering").
I think the correct calculation involves the density of the air, to estimate the speed of the air that must be pushed down.
> let's just round that to 10 m/s^2. 10 m/s^2 100g is 1 N, which means it requires 1 W of power to keep that battery aloft*
To transform some force into power, you need to multiply it by a speed (m/s). My favorite example is that a brick resting on a table can "hover" without spending any power (for a weird definition of "hovering").
I think the correct calculation involves the density of the air, to estimate the speed of the air that must be pushed down.
Er, yeah, of course you're right.
Adding that factor in will mean adding in even more fake, hand-wavy numbers, but doesn't really change the end result; whatever value you end up with, if you double the weight of the batteries, you will need to displace twice as much air (or move it twice as fast) to compensate, which means you'll need to use up twice as much energy, leaving you with the same flight time in the end.
Adding that factor in will mean adding in even more fake, hand-wavy numbers, but doesn't really change the end result; whatever value you end up with, if you double the weight of the batteries, you will need to displace twice as much air (or move it twice as fast) to compensate, which means you'll need to use up twice as much energy, leaving you with the same flight time in the end.
Absolutely. This is being pitched as a consumer product you can throw in your bag though, which has definite size and usability constraints. For safety you really don't want people carrying around a backpack stuffed with Lithium Polymer cells either, that's a disaster waiting to happen if someone falls over backwards and pierces one of the cells.
Or drastic reductions in weight. I don't know which is more likely.
I suppose if it gets too light then wind becomes more of a problem.
I suppose if it gets too light then wind becomes more of a problem.
One way to mitigate this is with removable batteries, so you can replace them between scenes. Both the iris and this sprite both have that feature. The lily's battery does not appear to be removable.
would be nice if they could at least auto-home themselves to recharge
Looking at this from an Aerospace Engineering perspective, the weight distribution / CG properties may significantly limit the lateral movement of this vehicle; looks as such in the videos as well. This is because in order for a helicopter to move laterally it must pitch the rotors (in this case meaning the entire body) and a cg far from the rotor location makes this difficult. Something to think about.
Don't helicopters behave similar to rockets as regards CG properties? I would think the Pendulum Rocket Fallacy would apply here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy
In fact a large fuselage hanging down from below the rotor can cause a helicopter to become unstable. If the helicopter rolls, the rotor will slip sideways, gaining horizontal speed. The drag on the fuselage below the rotor will cause the helicopter to roll further, causing increased slip and increased horizontal speed, hences increased roll. To avoid this the rotors will have dihedral (they're angled upwards slightly). This is what gives stability.
Somewhat counterintuitively, a helicopter is actually more stable in roll if the fuselage is above the rotor, but that usually makes it hard to land safely: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q27ho2szWCoC&pg=PA346#v=...
In fact a large fuselage hanging down from below the rotor can cause a helicopter to become unstable. If the helicopter rolls, the rotor will slip sideways, gaining horizontal speed. The drag on the fuselage below the rotor will cause the helicopter to roll further, causing increased slip and increased horizontal speed, hences increased roll. To avoid this the rotors will have dihedral (they're angled upwards slightly). This is what gives stability.
Somewhat counterintuitively, a helicopter is actually more stable in roll if the fuselage is above the rotor, but that usually makes it hard to land safely: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q27ho2szWCoC&pg=PA346#v=...
This application might not need that much lateral performance, and the cg as is gives you nice static stability margin where you can relax all sorts of other requirements (control loop can be slower, the nav sensors can be lower performance, it's less sensitive to wind gusts, etc).
Absolutely - I just wanted to point this out after seeing some discussion about this as a 'follow-me' type of sports filming drone.
That's a nice piece of mechanical engineering. They crammed two full helicopter blade pitch control heads into that cylinder and made it rugged.
In the next 10 or so years, kids will have some pretty cool toys. My son would love to have this for his bike rides. 2025 these things will be as common as an iPad and will have things like environment-awareness.
This looks pretty cool. I cannot wait to see how this evolves.
This looks pretty cool. I cannot wait to see how this evolves.
I'm still waiting for the Perpetual Eclipse.
The Perpetual Eclipse is a quadcopter that calculates where the sun is, triangulates where your eyes are, and just floats in the direct path light travels when it gets in your eyes.
The Perpetual Eclipse is a quadcopter that calculates where the sun is, triangulates where your eyes are, and just floats in the direct path light travels when it gets in your eyes.
"Point-Defense Sunglasses"
Did they really trademark Sprite™? Doesn't Coca Cola own that?
> Did they really trademark Sprite™?
Probably.
> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?
Within a particular domain. Trademarks do not cover all possible commercial uses of a mark.
Probably.
> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?
Within a particular domain. Trademarks do not cover all possible commercial uses of a mark.
Trademarks are industry-scoped.
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_la...
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trademark_la...
> Did they really trademark Sprite™?
No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.
> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?
Yes, and under modern trademark law, Coca-Cola will be contacting/threatening them shortly, so you can expect a project name change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act
No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.
> Doesn't Coca Cola own that?
Yes, and under modern trademark law, Coca-Cola will be contacting/threatening them shortly, so you can expect a project name change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act
> > Did they really trademark Sprite™?
> No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.
The circle-R is for a registered trademark. Something can be claimed as (and protected as) a trademark -- and thus, trademarked -- without also being a registered trademark.
> No, or they would have used the R symbol instead of the TM.
The circle-R is for a registered trademark. Something can be claimed as (and protected as) a trademark -- and thus, trademarked -- without also being a registered trademark.
Precisely! Also When I first saw the post in hn. I immediately thought like a game graphic sprite. Not even the soda.
As mentioned by others, that's not how trademark law works. Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace. I'd bet you $1000 on longbets.org that KO do not cause this company to change the name of their toy drone company.
My understanding of law leaves lots to be desired, but wouldn't the trial, even if they won, be way too expensive? And there is always the risk of losing, Coca-Cola can certainly afford better lawyers.
If I would be a startup I would love that kind of publicity.
Sure, as long as you can convert said publicity into money faster than you the lawsuit drains you.
> Soda and drones are not likely to be confused in the marketplace
This drone does look like a 2-liter [Sprite] bottle though :)
This drone does look like a 2-liter [Sprite] bottle though :)
You didn't even click the link I provided, did you?
coca cola will contact them, but that won't necessaruily result in a chage. As pointed out, drones are a distinct market from sugary drinks, sot he likelihood of consumer confusion is low. It's true that Coke's legal department will write a grumpy letter anyway, in order to create a legal record of actively defending their existing mark, which can be raised in court if they are ever confronted with a genuine infringer.
I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.
I assume/hope the Spirte team have budgeted a few $ for the legal expenses in replying to such a letter, but agree with the poster below that the cost might well be covered by the value of free publicity over a trademark dispute. I hope that's not a deliberate strategy, as it's the sort of thing that could turn into an abusive practice.
If you had clicked the link I provided, you might come to understand that since 1995, U.S. trademark law does not just work in the way you described, but also includes the concept of "dilution", where famous marks are protected by law even though there is zero chance of consumer confusion.
You should be looking at the Trademark dilution revision act of 2006 which has superseded it. While Coke would easily get an injunction against blurring, there are counter arguments about similarity, and the lack of intentional or factual associations with the famous Sprite mark, not to mention it's lack of inherent distinctiveness (as opposed to say '7up'.) The situation is more nuanced than you suggest.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary has a good CRS-authored summary of that legislation's content.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr683/summary has a good CRS-authored summary of that legislation's content.
So, it is a helicopter with variable pitch blades.
How does it compare, reliability-wise, with quads? Quads only have to change rotation speed. This one needs to change pitch, as helicopters do.
How does it compare, reliability-wise, with quads? Quads only have to change rotation speed. This one needs to change pitch, as helicopters do.
Can anyone savvy here weigh in on how much having a two-axis rather than three-axis gimbal will affect the stability of the video, if at all?
The third axis would just provide the ability to pan the video without rotating the drone itself. With SPRITE's pod-style helicopter design, they may be able to use the counter-rotor to provide the third axis of rotation automatically.
Yes, the third axis is for yaw stability. While you certainly want that for professional aerial video, it's not at all necessary for these action sports products. Also, the aircraft can definitely yaw.
But this also ties the stability to the stability of the drone itself, if it had a third axis, that could be used to compensate for the drone stability, right?
Since they are using coaxial blade and vectoring via cyclic control, stabilizing the camera on a third axis would be pointless.
Worse really, it would be excess weight.
The coaxial blades are used to rotate the aircraft around that third axis. The flight controller will just adjust the calculations needed to maintain the correct heading and the corect camera direction on the fly.
The 2-axis stabilization is 'needed' to compensate for pitch/roll of the aircraft cause by the cyclic control of the blades.
I've been pretty critical of UAV kickstarters, but I actually think this one is quite interesting and likely has a bright future.
Worse really, it would be excess weight.
The coaxial blades are used to rotate the aircraft around that third axis. The flight controller will just adjust the calculations needed to maintain the correct heading and the corect camera direction on the fly.
The 2-axis stabilization is 'needed' to compensate for pitch/roll of the aircraft cause by the cyclic control of the blades.
I've been pretty critical of UAV kickstarters, but I actually think this one is quite interesting and likely has a bright future.
Thanks! That's really helpful.
It looks like image stabilization will be difficult with this design. The camera seems to be at the bottom of a pendulum that swings as the drone moves about.
Perhaps that's why the promo video shows very little actual footage.
Perhaps that's why the promo video shows very little actual footage.
They're including a 2-axis gimbal that should (mostly) compensate for this.
Why does it look like some sort of flying bomb? I'm much more terrified of that hitting me than a rectangular piece of plastic that doesn't look like a ballistic missile.
You're not alone. Actually every time I see similar products out there I see flying death but this one specifically looks like it could drop a bite-sized doom on me. :)
The fast pace of development and availability of these kind of flying machinery is bound to create security implications sooner or later. These things would be great for assassinations or with a fleet of them you can absolutely terrorize the hell of a sizable area.
The fast pace of development and availability of these kind of flying machinery is bound to create security implications sooner or later. These things would be great for assassinations or with a fleet of them you can absolutely terrorize the hell of a sizable area.
Also great startup opportunities.
Seems like a great thing. :) One question. Are those propellers safe? They are not covered with anything and may potentially hurt owner or other people (face, eyes).
Nice design, makes more sense than the quads.
How does it make more sense? (Coming from someone with no clue and looking for insights)
It has a much better form factor for carrying in a backpack than a quad; it can fit in a water bottle pocket.
I can see the benefit of collapsibility. But does it fly better (or worse)?
The design is more energy efficient than a quadcopter.
Seems like a market that goosoftple will soon be entering, or at least making some acquihires
Am I the only one who just can stand these promotional videos?
guitar music What if there was a... CLICK
I don't know what it is, I just get a feeling of being treated like an idiot with a wallet.
guitar music What if there was a... CLICK
I don't know what it is, I just get a feeling of being treated like an idiot with a wallet.
"guitar music What if there was a... CLICK"
It's like Wordpress. There are templates.[1]
[1] http://videohive.net/tags/kickstarter
It's like Wordpress. There are templates.[1]
[1] http://videohive.net/tags/kickstarter
Yeah, I muted the video as soon as I heard those first guitar chords.
Thanks, I'm just amazed that someone upvoted my grumpy post :)
so cringefully generic. Who are these chords even trying to appeal to? ffs this drone might be used by farmers or soldiers
Also on product hunt: http://www.producthunt.com/posts/sprite
I'm going to be the childish person and say what I'm sure other people are thinking. This is a very phallic looking drone.
No, this is a phallic-looking drone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRslKeT0EmQ
(arguably NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRslKeT0EmQ
(arguably NSFW)
Prices/status for reference:
Price ranges are for Pre-Order vs. Post-Ship pricing.
EDIT: Added Ares HD & Solo.