Can this work?

Can this work?

Other urls found in this thread:

aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/5191/how-does-the-efficiency-of-a-fixed-wing-compare-to-a-rotary-wing
mb-soft.com/public2/energyso.html
dji.com/phantom-4/info
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No

No, retard.

It wont stay in the air forever, but its possible to keep the battery going longer.

Current gen tech wont allow for a 100% solar powered quad just yet.

IF IT DOESN'T WORK THEN TELL HIM WHY IT DOESN'T WORK YOU FUCKING RETARDS. HE WILL JUST ASK AGAIN BECAUSE HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY.

OOORRR MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU FAGGOTS DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK OR NOT AND YOU'RE TRYING TO BE A MEAN ASSHOLE TO HIM

FUCK
OUTAA
HERE

Would be a perpetuum mobile if it would

It can work for 5 minutes, then land and recharge to fly for another 5 minutes the next day.

>Current gen tech wont allow for a 100% solar powered quad just yet.
It's theoretically impossible for a photovoltaic drone shaped like the op's pic.

How new are you?

>Super light materials
>Increase SA of solar by like 10 times

uh huh. affirmative. yes.

No
Efficiency for photovoltaic panels is still low.
It's a good idea tho, the motors used in drones are usually DC and photovoltaic panels can only produce DC so you won't need an alternator

>It's theoretically impossible for a photovoltaic drone shaped like the op's pic.

why

no

isn't the battery and the whole circuit already DC?

sperglord much

First law of thermodynamics

Stupid answer

Please be a troll

>PV panels can make more energy than the energy provided to it by sunlight
Please be a troll

oh wow.

gotta love the human brain

but you can put panels on like in ops pic and it will work

it wont fly indefinitely but you will get slightly longer flight time

FUCKING RETARD.
THE SUNLIGHT IS *USED* AS ENERGY HERE

Can you provide some numbers?
How much power does the sun provide per square inch, how efficient are solar panels and how much power do the motors need to stay airborne?

I had to google this
>The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems.
Wow what does thermodynamics have to do with any of this? Why couldn't you just say 'conservation of energy'?

Just to clarify.

You're saying that there is not enough energy in sunlight to power something the size of it's panel.

I think that's what you are sort of saying. That's an entirely retarded assumption to make.

This is how Nasa gets stuff up to the ISS

It works in that it will very slowly charge the battery.

But it doesn't have nearly enough PV to power it to fly.

The only solar PV flying machines are massive ultra light flying wings covered in PV film that are so weak they often breakup in flight.

The tech I've wondered about is a drone with a buoyancy balloon to take most of the lifting load.

depends on how light the quad is. it could probably be done with today's tech if you cut out all of the protective structure; the glass on the panels, the plastic body, etc.

>depends on how light the quad is
If it's light enough to achieve flight with energy from a square foot of PV panel, what you have is a kite and you aren't really flying.

Third newton's law.
Even if the sun produced terawatts per square inch the PV still wouldn't be able to fly because photons hitting it are pushing it downward.

APOLOGIZE

you are trying to sound smart but it doesn't work

>Can this work

As a means to fly indefinitely? No. It won't generate enough power for that.

As an interesting method to have your drone travel far? Maybe.

If you had it connected via a mobile network you could send it on a long voyage. It would land to charge up and then continue as required.

you are trying to sound retarded and it's working very well

Do you understand the difference in fixed wing and rotary wing power requirements to achieve lift?

A kite uses wind to fly. This PV would fly even if the winds were still.

Yes, i assumed there was no battery in OPs idea

Basically the weight of the solar panel wouldn't be worth it when you can put a bigger battery in.

That said it is possible to design a light weight drone with solar.

>what is helium

> a typical solar collector about 100 sq-ft in area will produce about 32 kBTU on a clear (no shade) day. The kBTU units can be converted to kWh, a typical unit of measure for electricity. A typical solar thermal collector will produce about 10 kWh per day

It's interesting for enabling multiple-leg trips without having to rely on infrastructure for charging. Fly for 15m, stop, charge for 30m, fly again, etc.

>On average (as a general "rule of thumb") modern photovoltaics (PV) solar panels will produce 8 - 10 watts per square foot of solar panel area.

Too bad photons have zero mass thus extort zero force due to Newton's second law. Actually photons do pass some impulse but due to completely different reasons.

More like fly for 5 min and charge for 45 min.

>Do you understand the difference in fixed wing and rotary wing power requirements to achieve lift?

This comes down to disc/wing loading

>what are drones
Hint: not blimps

This one works with lift you idiot. The thrust-to-weight ratio of these engines isn't as high, and basically you're a fucking hopeless retard.

>sqft
>btu
What the fugg, you stupid amerilard

> a typical solar collector about [10 sq-m] in area will produce about [10kwh] on a clear (no shade) day.
Fixeded

Same diff, that's the concept. I'm not much into the drone scene.

The big difference is cost. Anyone could create a wireless power platform to charge their drone rather inexpensively. But making a very small drone with a very expensive solar film is a little different.

Actually, a drone could be anything that is automated, by definition. It is not specific to rotary wing. So some form of lighter than air mixed with rotary wing could still be called a drone.

>This comes down to disc/wing loading

Disc loading of fucking what?

Flying wings get way more lift for power input over rotary wing aircraft.

You know damn right that by drones people mean quadcopters. Claiming otherwise is autism.

>Disc loading of fucking what?

weight / area of the rotor disc

>Flying wings get way more lift for power input over rotary wing aircraft.

it depends

When people say 'Predator drones', do they mean quadcopters?

Nah, claiming otherwise is rejecting the stupidity of the masses as something I should adopt. A "drone" has nothing to do with how lift or movement is achieved. Retards who use the that term as a catch all or rotary wing remote control toys are just that, retards.

Even if it flies prolonged, are you accounting for the extra payload weight? No. Does then panel make more power than it uses to be carried is what u should be figuring.

They mean UCAVs.

HMMMMMM that doesnt sound right


Fixed wing: 3 to 5 liters per 100 passenger km
Rotary: 11.9 litres per 100 passenger km

For fixed wing aircraft, they use an engine to keep the plane moving forward. The air flow over the wings generates lift. The engine must only overcome the drag of the airplane (in level flight). This drag is both due to the form drag of the plane and the generation of lift from the wings.

For a rotary aircraft, the engine keeps the rotors moving. The rotation of the rotors generates lift, but this is also the main force used to move the aircraft forward. So in this case, the rotors not only provide the lift to keep the aircraft in the air, but also the thrust to keep it moving forward.

aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/5191/how-does-the-efficiency-of-a-fixed-wing-compare-to-a-rotary-wing

Cause its not.

What is MQ-9

Rotary by definition should have thrust to weight ratio above one. However, rotary and fixed wing thrust per watt efficiency is about the same, thus rotary has to supply way more power to stay airborne.

Old meme.

People are already messing around with inductive charging of drones with their landing platform.

Fuel cell drones when.

>weight / area of the rotor disc
What disc?

>it depends
No it doesn't.

>its possible to keep the battery going longer.

Nah, the added weight will negate the extra power.

Identical drone but with solar panel removed will stay in the air longer.

>What disc?

Disc of the rotor

>No it doesn't.

Lift to drag ratio is important

you can easily make a fixed wing with a higher thrust requirement then a helicopter

>This is how Nasa gets stuff up to the ISS

I thought they begged the Russians and sucked Putin's cock?

>Rotary by definition should have thrust to weight ratio above one.

Wrong

A rotor produces lift, not thrust

>1242x2208

How did you get that resolution on an iPhone?

What is it a flying chessboard?

>Disc of the rotor
No such thing. You do know that the rotor blades are straight right?

>you can easily make a fixed wing with a higher thrust requirement then a helicopter

So if I build this strawman you are wrong is that about right?

Newsflash dicks in the thread
Instead of shatposting grab a calculator

Assuming 20x20cm cell
thats 0.04 square meters total surface

to the best of my recollection in insanely ideal conditions the sun gives out 1000W per square meter

Googling thin film photovoltaic efficiency i gather a good efficiency for a very fancy pc foil is around 20%.
That's 200W per square meter.

So with our cell size we get 8W of power output in ideal conditions with a very fancy cell.

For good measure of not so nice conditions and efficency say 4W

Now dronefags tell us about running a drone on 4 watts.
That is about 1 ampere at typical lithium cell voltages in case you cant calculator.

Wings do, engines don't.

The answer is yes.
Depends on a lot of factors, but yes thw energy from the sun is likely enough to move some kind of drone. Right now the efficiency of the PVcells and the weight of the materials would make it very hard to have a drone that can mantain itself as long as the light is strong and constant.

My guesd to do it i. This day and age would be with self buoyancy, like a zeppelin or a helium baloon attatched, so most of the energy would be spent on moving it rather than fighting gravity. Then it could easily work.

>if no energy is needed to achieve flight, then solar can definitely used for flight

are you shitting me

Well I mean, if the chassis was made of carbON NANO TUBE TRANSISTOOOOORS

Ultralight graphen drone, almost perfect nanotechnology panel, ultra high-efficient motors, yes.

Drone on pic, fucking no.

>No such thing. You do know that the rotor blades are straight right?

the area the rotor covers is a disc. this area is what is used to calculate the disc loading, ie how many pounds each square foot must support

>So if I build this strawman you are wrong is that about right?

that designing an aircraft is about numerous compromises and generally some things hold true but this isnt an absolute, especially in extreme cases

>Wings do, engines don't.

And how do rotor blades produce lift?

2 day charging for 15 min flight

lelno, maybe a mini zeplin covered with flexible solar panels might actually be possible though like that probe from alien planet.

A PV panel with infinite folds of panels connected to infinitely efficient motors would not produce the power needed for flight.

Solar panels are pretty shit, they get too hot and the heat is dissipated instead of generate energy.

If drone weighs 3gr yes.

>infinite folds
but this doesn't help
yes the surface area is theoretically infinite but the same amount of photons land on it as if it was flat

it should be possible theoretically, if you had an efficient enough solar cell. The sun produces ~430 watt hours of energy per square foot, while a consumer drone like the DJI only uses about 80.

mb-soft.com/public2/energyso.html
dji.com/phantom-4/info

I also have no idea how electronics work so I could be completely wrong.

please refer to this
>only about 80W
Are you shitting me

the weight of the solar panel will probably require more extra power than it can supply. then again if you wanted to send it on a super long range missing it could fly at night and then land in an inconspicuous spot during the day to charge. eventually it could circle the globe as long as it can float and doesn't get taken out by seagulls.

the iphone 6+ and 7+ render at 1242x2208 so they can use ~3x assets which are then down sampled to 1920x1080

*long range mission*

>81.3 Wh battery
>Flight Time: Approx. 28 minutes
>It uses 80 Watts, you guys
Current state of Sup Forums

4 W is enough to lift 400 grams one meter per second.

How heavy is a quadcopter and how efficient are the motors?

>BTU
is British Thermal Unit you fuck.

It would be much easier if a diy drone dick would show up and throw some empirical power consumption figures.

No.
The sun is super heavy, so you can't use it to fly.

Solar cell wont provide enough power to run the motors

that's for a single system dipshit
the drone is now receiving energy from an external source
the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here, it's not like the rotors are spinning turbines to generate energy

>implying the sun isn't already floating

>if there is more than one source of energy, you can generate more energy than you take in