Can this work?

>>59115009
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

>>59115009
Would be a perpetuum mobile if it would

>>59115009
It can work for 5 minutes, then land and recharge to fly for another 5 minutes the next day.

>>59115065
>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.

>>59115075
How new are you?

>>59115009
>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

>>59115103
>It's theoretically impossible for a photovoltaic drone shaped like the op's pic.

why

>>59115092
no

>>59115161
isn't the battery and the whole circuit already DC?

>>59115075
sperglord much

>>59115179
First law of thermodynamics

>>59115092

Stupid answer

>>59115232
Please be a troll

>>59115251
>PV panels can make more energy than the energy provided to it by sunlight
Please be a troll

>>59115276
oh wow.

gotta love the human brain

>>59115276

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

>>59115276
FUCKING RETARD.
THE SUNLIGHT IS *USED* AS ENERGY HERE

>>59115232
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?

>>59115232
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'?

>>59115276
>>59115296
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.

>>59115009
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.

>>59115425
>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.

>>59115349
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.

File: 370876main_ED01-0209-5_full.jpg?itok=nIN3z3lo.jpg (29KB, 1041x320px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1041x320px

>>59115032
>>59115041
>>59115065
>>59115093
>>59115161
APOLOGIZE

>>59115458
you are trying to sound smart but it doesn't work

>>59115009

>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.

>>59115477
you are trying to sound retarded and it's working very well

>>59115473
Do you understand the difference in fixed wing and rotary wing power requirements to achieve lift?

>>59115442
A kite uses wind to fly. This PV would fly even if the winds were still.

>>59115198
Yes, i assumed there was no battery in OPs idea

>>59115009
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.

>>59115518
>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

>>59115009
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.

>>59115458
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.

>>59115584
More like fly for 5 min and charge for 45 min.

>>59115518
>Do you understand the difference in fixed wing and rotary wing power requirements to achieve lift?

This comes down to disc/wing loading

>>59115581
>what are drones
Hint: not blimps

>>59115473

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.

>>59115583
>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

>>59115662
Same diff, that's the concept. I'm not much into the drone scene.

>>59115682
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.

>>59115669
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.

>>59115667
>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.

>>59115770
You know damn right that by drones people mean quadcopters. Claiming otherwise is autism.

>>59115781
>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

>>59115798
When people say 'Predator drones', do they mean quadcopters?

>>59115798
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.

>>59115304
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.

>>59115872
They mean UCAVs.

>>59115841
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.

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

Cause its not.

>>59115798
>>59115798
What is MQ-9

>>59115841
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.

>>59115934
Old meme.

File: IMG_1037.png (969KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1242x2208px

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

Fuel cell drones when.

>>59115841
>weight / area of the rotor disc
What disc?

>it depends
No it doesn't.

>>59115065
>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.

>>59116119
>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

>>59115365
>This is how Nasa gets stuff up to the ISS

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

>>59115983
>Rotary by definition should have thrust to weight ratio above one.

Wrong

A rotor produces lift, not thrust

>>59116029
>1242x2208

How did you get that resolution on an iPhone?

>>59115009
What is it a flying chessboard?

>>59116163
>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?

>>59115009
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.

>>59116195
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.

>>59116319
>if no energy is needed to achieve flight, then solar can definitely used for flight

>>59115458
are you shitting me

>>59115009
Well I mean, if the chassis was made of carbON NANO TUBE TRANSISTOOOOORS

>>59115009
Ultralight graphen drone, almost perfect nanotechnology panel, ultra high-efficient motors, yes.

Drone on pic, fucking no.

>>59116208
>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?

>>59115009

2 day charging for 15 min flight

File: 8.png (1006KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 1280x800px

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

>>59116425
A PV panel with infinite folds of panels connected to infinitely efficient motors would not produce the power needed for flight.

>>59115349
Solar panels are pretty shit, they get too hot and the heat is dissipated instead of generate energy.

>>59116488
If drone weighs 3gr yes.

>>59116488
>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

>>59115103
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.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/energyso.html
https://www.dji.com/phantom-4/info

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

>>59116564
please refer to this
>>59116225

>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.

>>59116196
the iphone 6+ and 7+ render at 1242x2208 so they can use ~3x assets which are then down sampled to 1920x1080

>>59116642
*long range mission*

>>59116564
>81.3 Wh battery
>Flight Time: Approx. 28 minutes
>It uses 80 Watts, you guys
Current state of /g/

>>59116225
4 W is enough to lift 400 grams one meter per second.

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

>>59115682
>BTU
is British Thermal Unit you fuck.

>>59116750
It would be much easier if a diy drone dick would show up and throw some empirical power consumption figures.

>>59115009
No.
The sun is super heavy, so you can't use it to fly.

>>59115075
Solar cell wont provide enough power to run the motors

>>59115232
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

>>59116827
>implying the sun isn't already floating

>>59116841
>if there is more than one source of energy, you can generate more energy than you take in

>>59116829
What are your power consumption figures?

>>59116852
It's perpetually falling. That's what orbiting is.
You can use solar cells to orbit, like satellites do.

>>59115009
Not with solar power only. Effiency of solar power is only about 25%. The amount generated for that assuming it has even a meter wide and long. Still would not work.

>>59116863
Who said that. You don't generate(you have to spend something for that) energy, you take it directly from the Sun.

File: (((Issac Newton))).jpg (198KB, 407x559px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 407x559px

>>59116392
I shit thee not, newton's third law is real.

Behold for yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_third_law

>>59116995
>You don't generate(you have to spend something for that) energy, you take it directly from the Sun.
Are you retarded?

>>59115621
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
:^)

>>59117023
Doesn't even contradict my post. Either you haven't read it or haven't read the article.

>>59117012
Sorry I'm allergic to non-arguments.

>>59115009
If it were small and light enough. I wouldn't see why not.

It can. I actually live in one and I haven't touched the ground ever since. It even recharges my moto g. It's been so long. Wish I could come down to get a new smartphone though but I don't know how to operate this lol.

>>59117064
You can't create energy. It's the law.

>>59117083
That's what I said.

>>59117083
The people of japan disagree.

>>59117083

Anything is possible if you believe in God.

>>59117123
That's a lot of responsibility for one person.

>>59117148
She is not a person

>>59117154
Wait, are we not talking about me?

>>59117171
That is sin. Please don't sin.

>energy source is the sun
>most powerful object within thousands of light years
>can't power a 2lb drone indefinitely even with a 99.999999% efficient solar panel, given a wide enough capture space


So, nobody here *actually* understands conservation of energy. Noted.

>>59117179
You made that claim in the first place!

>>59117194
>indefinitely
Well... At least until the sun burns out

>>59117199
Stop it

>>59117179
You're not being funny.
You're just imitating US internet comedian Terry Davis.

>>59116208
that quad is probably pulling anywhere between 10-15 amps at either 11.1v or 14.6v

>>59117206
The stop blaming me for the non-existence of magic. I can't choose what I believe.

>>59117203
>wait until the right moment right before the sun explodes
>hide behind the drone's solar pannel
>sun goes out in a big explosion
>sollar pannel absorbs outlandish amount of energy
>drone can now fly to anywhere
>attach yourself to it and explore space indefinitely
>can even take your battlestation with you since no gravity in space

File: 27e0190e1d0b5934efdc36d3b6ee2f25.jpg (7KB, 261x174px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x174px

>>59117238

>>59117238
Local anonymous dicovered a weird trick that lets you explore space indefinitely.
ROCKET SCIENTISTS HATE HIM!

>>59117194
Solar panels have weight, too, so the wider the capture space, the higher the mass(and then you need to support the solar panels, so you need to add support structures, so it becomes even heavier). And you can't run the solar panel under the rotors either, otherwise they'll generate no lift at all.

>>59117305
Thing is, the only limiting factor is whether the panel is able to theoretically capture more energy than it takes to lift its own weight. Then, it's just an efficiency problem, since the sun almost certainly produces more than enough energy to do so.

File: sunlight_powered_hovercraft.jpg (222KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 640x480px

>>59115009
Yes and it's been done before:
https://youtu.be/K2jH95R2ITI
http://myresearch.company/data/ecilop-solar.phtml


It's not very practical

Why hasn't anyone made a metamaterial solar panel yet?

I remember back to the hype over that "EM blackhole" metamaterial that was able to trap pretty much all incident EM on it. (frequency limited, of course)
It was released as heat eventually.
But you could probably change how it eventually gets used as it reaches the core of the metamaterial. (and maybe one day, metallic hydrogen superconductor if it IS one)

Something like that even as it is NOW would still be hugely beneficial from small-scale remote installations where solar panels are either overkill or not usable.

File: 220px-Steradian.svg.png (23KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x220px

>>59117194
>people this stupid browse /g/

>>59117238

But you'd have to wait for the sun to explode. We could make it happen instantly though by pointing a mirror into its position so the heat it's trying to release will go right back into it and burn it until it explodes.

In maybe 40 years when we have pv cells that can energize off the entire light spectrum and not just UV and visable light, then just maybe we can hope to achieve that kind of PV cell effeciency

solar powered flying isn't outside the realm of possibility though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ6QTpKSpAY

quadcopters are notoriously power inefficient. I'd think your idea would be much more feasible with a foam core airplane design

>>59117305
Just fill it with helium

>>59117407
>people this stupid think other people are this stupid
Step up, Senpai.
>>59117349

>>59117238
airfoil propellers only generate lift in atmosphere you big dummy

>>59117467
>applying logic to an obviously illogical post

It's like you can't even make light go any faster.
Fucking nerd. Get good. I can make light go all night long baby.

Why hasn't anyone made a flying city yet?
Fucking call yourself engineers?

>>59117583
>engineers
>/g/
HAHAHAHAHAA

>>59115798
You're the one being autistic here. You know the vehicles used for drone strikes? Let me tell you, they are not quadcopters.

>>59117349
thats seriously impressive thanks for the link

>>59117595
i am a CompEngi student

>>59117448
I wasn't taking about the possibility, I was talking about the power output of the Sun. Drone will capture only a quadrilionth of that. Flight can be achieved by using very light materials or more efficient propulsion for example.

>>59115232
8/10 troll

The drone is expending energy in order to offset the gravitational acceleration yes, but that is in no way correlated to the power the panel generates.

>>59116655
I have a 6S plus.

>>59117741
More to the point, using softer materials would help too.
A drone doesn't need to be super ultra hyper rigid, it could afford to be lighter by being softer and less dense in turn.

If you are speaking a remote 24 hour flight drone, say, for an internet repeater like Google were planning with balloons, being softer wouldn't be a huge problem.

File: IMG_1040.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Check out this Hubsan X4. Not a drone, but a remote control quad.

380mAh battery that only gives you a few minutes of flight time. And this thing is tiny and light. Battery is probably closer to the weight of it.

>>59117194
>given a wide enough capture space
Or more like given 12 cm x 12 cm capture space.

>>59117741
Yes, and I said
>given a wide enough capture space
Which could literally mean as wide as earth, or more. We're talking theory, here, remember?

>>59117971
PV cannot power heavier than air flight no matter how big the capture space. You have to start going beyond theoretical and into straight up fiction for that to happen. I don't have the sauce on that right now though.

>>59118066
anon already posted this vid that clearly shows pv cells powering a heavier than air vehicle

https://youtu.be/K2jH95R2ITI

File: SolarImpulse_HB-SIA_landing_Brussels_Airport_3-crop.jpg (449KB, 1941x1061px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1941x1061px

>>59118066

its been done

>>59115032
>>59115041
>>59116829
Oh really? And what if I shoot a powerfull laser to the battery? It WILL work, but not by the sun's power.

>>59118135
It has a battery. Replace the battery with a capacitor and then we will talk.

>>59118797
where is this battery you speak of?
what do you think a capacitor is? electrolytic capacitors, at least, are batteries.

>>59115009
Add a bag of hydrogen and yes of course it will work.

>>59116899
1 solar = 1 motor
You need at least 3 more solars.

>>59115009
I don't think you people realise how much power those motors can draw.
My quad can pull over 20A per motor at full tilt.

>>59118135
The fishing line in that video could not be easier to see.

FAKE NEWS

>>59117083
>convert mass to energy
>net energy of system increases.

>>59120589
The fishing line is to restrain its movements
http://myresearch.company/data/ecilop-solar.phtml

>>59120568
>20A
amperage ≠ power though