In the video, the founders suggest that I can "spy on people" and simultaneously show a picture of little girls. I would suggest removing that from the video.

Also in the video, they proudly announce that "the dragonfly has 5 technology patents on its design, ranging from mechanics, aerodynamics and flight controls". The fact that they intend to use the patent system to prevent competition might help them attract investors, but it sure as hell is not going to encourage me to contribute to their funding campaign.

Can someone explain something to me. These guys have 5 patents for their Dragonfly and, according to them, the research that led to these patents was funded by taxpayers to the tune of $1,000,000. So, the government funds the research, and the researchers get to patent the results for themselves? Is that the usual arrangement?

Typically, you'll have something like the following: - The government funds the research - The developers get first refusal on patenting - If they refuse, the government can patent - If they patent, the government is given a perpetual free license to use the technology

would love to know how much noise this wing design makes. The quadra/hexa/octocopters we fly are great but pretty noisy

Ours are slightly bigger though - designed to lift a RED Epic camera and a big bunch of batteries :) http://londonhelicam.co.uk - password to see the video is 'helicam'

The reel has some very nice cinematic shots. I wonder when we will start to see more of this in Hollywood cinema.

thanks :) It's all very new tech but a similar setup (rc heli with RED Epic) was used in a couple of aerial shots in Skyfall - the latest James Bond film

Cool Baltic and Nordic shots :) Go Ville!

I find it disturbing that they advertise it with "spying on people".

At least they are honest about the true use case of their minidrone. Unsettling nonetheless.

Hardware ftw. See also the Mimix quadrocopter on Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/qfolabs/mimixtm-tilt-to-...

Wish these kinds of toys were available when I was a kid!

I like all the comments about how "original" and "innovative" this...even though the CIA did this 40 years ago. http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/30/cia-dragonfly-drone-uavs-...

On a side note, I wonder how well it holds up in the wind?

I was wondering about the wind as well. One of their use cases is recording yourself on a hike, but that seems like a pretty precarious environment...

neat. but conveniently no mention of battery life or range; always a huge issue with tiny fliers.

They have the battery life/flight time as follows (assuming this is for the alpha variation)

Hovering Time: 8-10 minutes

Hybrid Flight Time: 25-30 minutes

Image source: http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net/medias/521391/pictures/...

For anyone that has experience with various types of fliers like this, why does battery life suck so much and are there any options that can be used to extend it very significantly? Is it a matter of needing to invent better batteries, would reducing weight be the best option, or does it need to run off of some different fuel source to improve?

I guess my question really is: will this improve over time, or is there some real stumbling block that's holding that back?

The power/weight ratio. Particularly the energy density of available batteries. Unless batteries can be given a much greater stored energy capacity per unit weight, "toy" flight will be the only kind of battery powered flight possible.

this: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424996/why-your-battery...

There hasn't been much improvement in battery energy density over the past 10 years. There are some interesting developments going on promising 3x-30x improvement on li-ion, but none of it has emerged yet.

When someone finally cracks this, it will have disruptive effects on mobile computing to electric cars to renewable energy storage and a million other fields.

In the FPV community it's not uncommon to get +1 hour flying times. But the planes are of course bigger than the dragonfly. The battery types used is Lithium polymer battery. Some people add solar cells on their plane to extend their flying times. This guy uses a combination of a glider and solar cells to fly for +5 hours http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?8311-New-round-trip-...

that's actually pretty impressive and more than enough to be useful. they do look bulkier in the videos than in the cg, though.

Hobby grade remote control helicopters get around 7-10 minutes of flight time (without 3d acrobatics), and quads can easily get 20~ minutes without adding any additional batteries. They usually don't come with as complicated electronics as the video suggests.

I believe they actually come in different sizes.

Not sure if you can spy on people. These things are going to be too loud.