Re:Drone Bubble Bursts, Wiping Out Startups and Hammering VC...
by i_am_proteus on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @09:46PM
(#20883168)
Yes, but the motor (turbine) to run kero is more expensive than the motor (piston) to run petrol.
Re:Drone Bubble Bursts, Wiping Out Startups and Hammering VC...
by grogenaut on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @10:49PM
(#20883460)
The motor to run the drones was expensive till they became mass produced and dropped in price. Same for the batteries. DJI Drones aren't exactly cheap either.
also I believe if you want to be pedantic, if it runs on combustion it's a engine. if electric then a motor.
Re:Drone Bubble Bursts, Wiping Out Startups and Hammering VC...
by eitland on Thursday September 05, 2019 @02:18AM
(#20884277)
> also I believe if you want to be pedantic, if it runs on combustion it's a engine. if electric then a motor.
I think that might be less general than you think: General Motors hasn't exactly been known for their electric motors the last few decades.
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine
Re:Drone Bubble Bursts, Wiping Out Startups and Hammering VC...
by twic on Thursday September 05, 2019 @06:49AM
(#20885456)
"Motor" is commonly used for rockets too, eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...
Re:Drone Bubble Bursts, Wiping Out Startups and Hammering VC...
by dredmorbius on Thursday September 05, 2019 @11:13AM
(#20887523)
The motor/engine dichotomy is blurry at best.
However "reciprocating engine" has a clear usage preponderance over "reciprocating motor":
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=reciprocating%...
They are noisy, however. Drone buzz now is simply from spinning fans. Adding a reciprocating motor to the mix is all the louder.
The alternative is lighter airframes and solar power. For quads / octos, probably not viable, but for a prop-driven fixed-wing craft, a very small amount of thrust to counter gravity could be quite effective. Expanded polystyrene or similarly light body, solar cells over all horizontal surfaces, and an ultra-lightweighted controls and imaging payload. That would allow for long-duration flights at least in daylight.
The low-energy use would also make battery-powered night flights more viable, certainly beyond 15 minutes.
The principle cost is loss of hover capabilities.