>tfw your magnum opus is basic algebra I'm not sure how

File: pi_viertel_1.gif (990KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 400x398px

It's not clear from your post, but I assume you speak about some thesis. Bachelor or Master thesis?
Then, in any case, nobody will read it. NOBODY, except you and your prof, and your mom might read the Acknowledgements. I'm not even kidding.
From a job perspective, unless you try to do a post-doc etc., it's good if you have working practice and intuition for linear algebra stuff.

>>7934843
>it isn't even new just existing theory neatly packaged.

Euclid didn't give a fuck about that shit. Publish and collect all the fucking shekels.

>>7934853
>thesis
top kek, I never even went to university. When you're making drones it's either total trial and error or whatever complex fluid mechanics that engineers do on propellers. So I did research and derived this one equation that tells you everything you want to know about your drone without wading through all sorts of calculus. Never seen it anywhere yet found it surprisingly accurate and useful so wanted to share it but /diy/ will say it's still too complex and /sci/ will say it's too simple lol.

>>7934899
>my efforts won't be appreciated
>on a peruvian engraving imageboard
just do it.
if it's interesting enough to make a thread about it's interesting enough to share.

>>7935707
I change my mind, academics are forever ignoring my ideas, not even dismissing just straight up ignoring. So now ill use my ideas for profit.

>>7936386
you don't have any idea. you have a piece of obfuscated bullshit which is contrived enough to full /diy/ into believing it's legit but we would obviously notice instantly

>>7934854
>Publish and collect all the fucking shekels
>collect all the fucking shekels
>he thinks OP will make money off some undergrad paper
WEW

you're full of shit
you haven't discovered anything that hasn't already been discovered

>>7934899
>So I did research and derived this one equation that tells you everything you want to know about your drone without wading through all sorts of calculus
Okay kid

Fucking brainlets

>>7936412
i never said it was an undergrad paper
>>7936424
I clearly said it was existing knowledge condensed into one simple equation. Its nothing new at all, its just simpler.
>>7936431
>>7936431
Well it tells you how much weight you can lift, how many batteries you need and how long it will fly. All in one equation.

>>7936577
This sounds like some basic shit op

>>7936588
duh but for some reason this knowledge is fragmented and not easy to find for the amateur. Ill prove it, right now, you answer this question, if you have a 2 kg quadcopter with 12 inch propellers how many 500 g, 4 Ah 22.2 V batteries do you need to hover it for 20 minutes? Assume 70% efficiency. If you can easily answer this then you can say my equation is useless.

>>7936577
>>7936612
How the fuck could you possibly characterize something like this as "everything you want to know about your drone"?

>>7934843
The ability to simplify complex problems to the layman is an amazing attribute

>>7936623
what else would you need to know? and please solve the problem i posted.
>>7936630
Yeah thats what im good at but nobody appreciates it. On /sci/ simplifications are bad.

>>7936639
Well most of the anons here contend that they are superior to all other people because most of us are scientist, as if we have some forbidden knowledge or abilities not many possess. What you are doing is a great justice to the system because when complex problems become common knowledge then we can progress and progress in the sciences begins with simplification

>>7936639
>what else would you need to know
The fucking dynamics of the thing? Trajectory optimization, that sort of thing? Shit that isn't just beyond trivial dimensional analysis that no one could give two shits about?

>>7936661
aww thanks. Yes i believe that science is too much of an elitist secret club. Before I researched rotorcraft for my self whenever i asked on /sci/ I kept getting told that there is no way except complex computational analysis, no one was willing to even give me a simple rule. You can calculate to within 90% accuracy with basic mechanics, which is enough for hobby work I dont get /sci/s attitude of navier stokes or the highway

>>7936612
This is literally first year of high school physics. It would be good for a how to design a drone tutorial or something, but if you think any academic should pay attention to you you´re just plain delusional.

>>7936668
Drones mostly hover, they are not ballistic missiles.
You keep screaming "trivial"! yet you still havent solved the problem i posted

>>7936685
>High school physica
Very true but seeing as you have all failed to solve the problem i posted you have proved my point that science has not catered to the new proliferation of drones by providing a simple condensed theory of how they work that anyone can use. Theres a big gap between hobbyists doing trial and error and professionals using differential equations

>>7936696
1. you are conflating an indonesian shrimp collectors forum with the entire scientific community
2. I haven´t failed cuz I haven´t even tried
3. hobbyists most all went to high school so what´s stopping them?
4. why don't you just share it with /sci/ or /diy/ instead of bitching that we wouldn't like it?

>>7936702
ill post it after someone tries to solve the problem themselves. Then we can compare it to see whether my way is truly simpler. Im asking for your help to verify if my equation is actually more useful than current methods. I am going to buy a fillet o fish meal when i get back the simplest solution wins.

>>7936712
>Not ignoring retards
>Keep using energy on low-paid (at best) arrogant people
>On the edge to become retarded

>>7936696
>condensed theory
>>7936712
>current methods

you equation IS current methods. taking a couple of equations and putting them together doesn't make something new. this isn't publishable, this isn't valuable, this isn't anything. go to college.

>>7936726
I said there was no simple way to solve the problem I posted even though its fundamental to building a cost effective drone without resorting to expensivr trial and error. Seeing as nobody has solved the problem I can only assume that this is true. Saying "I didnt do it because I cant be bothered" conflicts with your other claim that "its ridiculously easy"

>>7936680
>i believe that science is too much of an elitist secret club

It really isn't, it just takes a while to learn.

>>7936898
no it is, there are people out there who believe that introductory textbooks should be completely rigourous.

>>7936892
>I said there was no simple way to solve the problem I posted
But there is. Find the relevant equations and put them together. What the fuck are you trying to prove?

>>7936914
More valuable information in a book = better book.
What's your point?

>>7936992
do it then
Protip you cant
>>7937012
More information=harder to learn the basics

File: 1450643902425.jpg (140KB, 720x1230px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 720x1230px

>>7937099
>More information=harder to learn the basics

Chances are, what you think is learning isn't what people actually mean when they say learning if you think that your statement implies elitism.

File: 1446803528336.png (11KB, 381x381px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 381x381px

>be math major
>realize 3/4 of the way through junior year that you peaked in Calc III first semester sophomore year

Post it then

>>7936612
Nice homework thread faggot

File: 197.png (434KB, 680x650px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 680x650px

>>7935707
>Peruvian
Triggered

File: equation.png (2MB, 1239x897px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1239x897px

OP here, I am pretty convinced that you are all just unable to solve the problem hence why you all say you "can't be bothered" however you can just scream "homework thread!" and I can't prove otherwise so here's the solution using my equation. I'm not saying it's new physics I'm saying it really simplifies aerodynamics for amateurs which is important because amateur aircraft are starting to become widespread. If you still think it's nothing special then at least put your money where your mouth is by showing me a simpler way to do that calculation.

One interesting thing is that it gives the odd result that flying with 1 battery or 92 batteries makes absolutely no difference to flight time. Physics is strange huh?

>>7938558
10/10

>>7938558
but OP the units don't match on your equation.

>>7938599
If you don't believe it works I can do examples predicting the flight times of various commercial drones to be the same as what is listed on their sites.

>>7938558
>>7938608
get fucked you moron holy shit

>MUH MAGNUM OPUSSSS
jesus christ

>>7938632
Why the ad hominem attacks? Calling me a moron doesn't make the equation wrong


You fail to understand the meaning of "magnum opus", it is a personal thing, whatever you think is the nicest thing you ever made, doesn't have to be better than what others have done. The equation really makes life easier when building a drone but predictably /sci/ calls it moronic just because it's basic algebra even though they couldn't solve the problem I posted.

>>7938900
>Calling me a moron doesn't make the equation wrong
Your equation being wrong makes you a moron though

>>7938964
Why is it wrong?

>>7938988
the units don't even match
it's like saying
meter + meter = kilo grams

>>7938558
Can you define your variables here?

>>7939006
They must match because the equation does work, I've tested it with experimental data. You were laughing at my "babby-tier high school physics" earlier yet you can't even match the units in my equation. Embarrassing.

>>7939015
>They must match because the equation does work
kek, no just look at it
left side is kg^3/kg^2 = kg
right side is (w/kg)^2*m^2
that means we have kg = w^2/kg^2 * m^2
or kg^3 = w^2*m^2
You can't seriously believe that to be correct

>>7939015
Just get the hell out of /sci/ already.

Ok I'm in highschool, algebra 2, but I'll see if I can do it

T= pi / 4 x D(squared) x (v+V1/2) x p x V1
Grav force = Fg = T = mg = (Ma+B*Mb)*g

pi / 4 x D(squared) x (v+V1/2) x p x V1× E = (Ma+B*Mb)*g

E = effeciency
Ma=mass of aircraft
B=amount of batteries
Mb=mass of a battery
Where: T thrust [N]
D propeller diameter [m]
v velocity of incoming flow [m/s]
V1 additional velocity, acceleration by propeller [m/s]
P density of fluid [kg/m3] (air: = 1.225 kg/m3)

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/formula-for-aircraft-propeller-thrust.638267/

However, I haven't done physics yet, so idk if theres a way to get from this to energy. It seems you need experimental data because no work is being done because the force has no distance.

>>7939021
>>7939036
Alpha could be a constant.
Yall don't need to be ignoramuses about it

>>7939056
I asked you to define the terms up above
when you don't do that, it makes it hard to follow what you're doing in the equation
you said it was for amateurs

File: flight time.png (2MB, 1238x846px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1238x846px

>>7939056
This guy gets it
>>7939126
/sci/ is full of geniuses or so I am told. Surely you don't need me to hold your hand in order to be able to use a basic algebra formula?
>>7939036
>>7939021
Let's model the DJI S1000 octocopter.
From the website
http://www.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000/spec
With a 15000mAh 22.2V battery they claim it will fly for 15 minutes. Is this true? See pic.
I don't know what more proof you need that my equation works.

>>7939268
Kill yourself. This is completely fucking useless and totally shameful that you consider this your magnum opus.

>>7939309
How else are you supposed to work out how long your drone will fly for?

/sci/ is just desperate to put down others for any reason in order to feed their fragile ego. /sci/ said that I came up with nothing, so I posted the equation, /sci/ then said it doesn't work so I posted proof of it working, now out of arguments /sci/ is telling me to kill myself. Classy.

>>7939268
Where does the 1.3E^-3 come from?

>>7939353
it's a constant, same for all drones.

>>7939326
You've done a piece of basic math that should take a normal person less than 10 minutes, done an awful job of it, and then ran around calling it your "Magnum Opus". When people told you that was dumb, you've doubled down and started hurling insults, rather than taking it as an opportunity to learn something or just leaving.

>>7939565
You're the one hurling insults at me
>You've done a piece of basic math that should take a normal person less than 10 minutes
Yet /sci/ still has not given an alternative solution the the problem I posted. Well one guy tried >>7939045 but he seems to have failed. If you can solve that problem without my equation then I will believe that "it's basic shit that will take you 10 minutes". Or you could admit that your physics skills aren't as hot as you think they are.
>done an awful job of it,
I got the right answer......
>and then ran around calling it your "Magnum Opus"
I can call whatever I want my magnum opus. that's the whole idea behind magnum opi
To sum up this thread
>"Hey guys I made an equation to simplify previously laborious complex calculations"
>"Lol fuck off this is basic shit anyone could do in 2 mins"
>"Ok do it then"
>50 years later still waiting.

>>7939449
>>7939045
Are you fucking serious dude? How the hell am I supposed to know you made a drone constant or some shit?

Your equation just plain doesn't work though. 1 or 93 batteries? Obviously as the amount of batteries increases, the time it could stay in the air approaches that of a single battery with no other mass.

>you can just make up constants whenever doing so makes an equation work

Is this how physics is really done?

>>7939664
*correction two positive real solutions

>>7939661
I'm not the second guy you quoted.
>Your equation just plain doesn't work though. 1 or 93 batteries?
I don't understand your point, those are the two answers, there are three solutions because it's a cubic, in this case two are real and positive Don't you know how to solve a cubic?

File: 1385674202559.png (75KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 983x1013px

>>7939665
>aerodynamics without experimental data

>>7939670
I am the second guy.

Listen, you got a nice equation and everything, but it doesn't apply to real life.

Imagine you have 1 battery, it stays in the air 20 min according to your equation. It holds up 2.5 kg per battery

Now how come 2 batteries all the sudden doesn't work? With two batteries, it becomes 1.5 kg per battery, so shouldn't it stay in the air longer?

As you go to infinity batteries, the mass carried by each battery approaches 0.5 kg.

Your equation should approach the time a single battery can hold just itself up.

dude just put it in PDF form, spry it up a bit, and sell it as an ebook on Amazon. you could probably maek a lot of money from it.

>>7939676
>so shouldn't it stay in the air longer?
Exactly. The question was ho many batteries do you need to fly for 20 minutes, no more no less.
>>7939680
I was considering this. How do I prevent plagiarism though?

/sci/ getting trolled this hard.

alternatively you can't seriously think this is useful right.

>>7939651
>You're the one hurling insults at me
Actually I haven't. Yet.

>Yet /sci/ still has not given an alternative solution the the problem I posted.
>Or you could admit that your physics skills aren't as hot as you think they are.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Are you TRYING to be this dense?
This isn't some kind of gameshow or competition, with a judge and a million in cash if you can rack up enough points.

Fuck, let's just assume I'm retarded, and I actually CAN'T do basic physics. That still doesn't change the fact that you're still going on the offensive rather than listening to other people's criticism of your work.

>>7939651
>I got the right answer......
No you haven't. You've just thrown in arbitrary constants until you get believable-looking numbers.
The 93-battery thing should be a MAJOR fucking clue.
a
>>7939670
>I don't understand your point, those are the two answers, there are three solutions because it's a cubic, in this case two are real and positive Don't you know how to solve a cubic?
Even the slightest reflection should have shown you that the equation SHOULDN'T be a cubic.

But the largest issue of all here is conceptual. You seem to think that it's an issue that all these equations are separate, and that combining them is some kind of great work. It's not - it's just a normal part of describing a system.

>>7939694
Yeah, but how come 93 was also an output? It should stay in the air far longer than 20 min when each battery only needs to support 0.52 kg, not 2.5 kg

You need to help me with your stuff here man. What are you getting the area from? You specify it as m^2 in your calculations so I'm assuming it is area. Also, Ah*V/KG does not get you W*KG.

Current*Voltage =Watts

>>7939701
I'm thinking its got to be some type of rational function thats asymptotic. However, unless you're in some high level aerodynamics shit or have the experimental data, it's probably impossible to work out

>>7939701
>you're still going on the offensive rather than listening to other people's criticism of your work.
Couldn't be more wrong, I delivered everything that this thread asked. The thread said to show the equation, I did, the thread said it didn't work I did an example accurately predicting the flight time of a commercial drone
>No you haven't. You've just thrown in arbitrary constants until you get believable-looking numbers
The constant was picked with care.
>The 93-battery thing should be a MAJOR fucking clue
92 actually and it is a perfectly valid solution. If you were as good at physics as you say you are it should be very obvious why that is.
>Even the slightest reflection should have shown you that the equation SHOULDN'T be a cubic.
I'm actually quite happy that you think my equation is fundamentally wrong. This proves that my equation is not a super obvious rearrangement of a widely known one.
>But the largest issue of all here is conceptual. You seem to think that it's an issue that all these equations are separate, and that combining them is some kind of great work
I am going to predict your response to what I am going to say next "omfg he is seriously comparing himself to Tsiolkovsky!". Now we have gotten that baseless accusation out of the way, I am going to say that Tsiolkovsky didn't invent the rocket mechanics, he merely simplified it all into one easy to use equation. This is apparent if you look at the derivation of it; it's literally high school calculus, stuff that was known 300 years ago. HOWEVER it was previously scattered in many different literatures and never really addressing the specific issue of rocketry. When i first got into drones and tried to make calculations of performance I found the same thing, all the knowledge was of course there but it was scattered and hard for the amateur to put together. I have never seen an equation aimed squarely at electric multirotor performance.

>>7939708
That's not how it works. 92 batteries is a valid solution
>>7939711
Which one? the first one has 12 inch props so thats 0.304 m, just put that into the circle area formula and because it's a quad multiply it by 4 to get the total disc area.

Yes it's watt-hours technically which is energy but you can also look at it as amount of power supplied for one hour which gives an overall energy supply total at the end of that hour, therefore P=VI still works

>>7939733
That should be exactly how it works, there should be a direct correlation between energy/mass and time in the air.

>>7939736
Well it isn't. If you don't believe, too bad but the maths doesn't lie.

File: 1450022263852.png (79KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 250x238px

>>7939739

>>7939743
Well I did provide an example of it predicting the flight time of a DJI drone.... So unless the did their test in some time dilated black hole zone 15 minutes is 15 minutes.

File: 1335697373898.jpg (32KB, 413x425px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 413x425px

>>7939766
> one data point for aerodynamics
You can't be serious, this is bait, this has to be bait

Also, how the hell do you manage to fuck up and get the drone to only last 15 min if you got 20 min with a single battery?

File: 1455422234471.png (55KB, 165x168px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 165x168px

Nice job OP. I think these lesser mind are getting butt hurt because they don't even have a magnum opus, just a collection of mad shitposts on 4chan.

OP btfo everyone in this thread.

File: 1457060831559__1_.jpg (4MB, 2280x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2280x2736px

>>7939819
Damn straight, mah nigga

>>7939819
I've got a magnum opus anon
I substituted E=mc^2 into Gm/r=k to find that point masses of 1 and 93 solar masses have the same gravitational potential field.

Look for me in the papers.

>>7939876
> having the units canceling out properly
Did you even try dude? Every one knows the maths don't lie only if your units don't cancel out properly

>>7939353
Air density over gravity cubed. OP left out units.

>>7939694
It's not that big a deal, I had to do pretty much the same problem when studying for quals.

>I never studied math beyond high school, the thread

>>7939909
https://physics.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Qual2006-07_Exam_and_Solutions_0.pdf

And I tried seeing what
https://www.google.com/search?q=helicopter+lift+estimation
got, an this was in the first page of results:
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/modeling-the-thrust-from-a-quadcopter/

File: shit diagram.png (248KB, 790x1144px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 790x1144px

Reminds me of this.

>>7940003
Go and course somebody else with yourtubes, stupid Chem E.

>>7936696

The point here is that your question is non-complex. With a few definitions in place, almost everyone on this board could do the dimensional analysis in a minute or two and so can anyone who is basically competent in a math or math-based discipline.

Even accountants and lawyers can probably answer the question themselves easily.

Most here are not trying to dissuade you from sharing the information. It is probably incredibly helpful to large groups of people. But we are not answering the question because it is an applied question, which, most people do not have information handy to answer applied questions unless they happen to be doing work on a similar question.

For example, I do not know the conversions from metric to imperial off hand, but it is not challenging to convert them once I know it. The same is true of your question, almost anyone here can easily reduce the question you proposed if we just knew the definitions, but I don't think anyone is going to care enough to look them up.

>>7939694

you aren't going to get a copyright if that's what you're hoping

you just have to make the best version of the product

>>7940857
>The same is true of your question, almost anyone here can easily reduce the question you proposed if we just knew the definitions, but I don't think anyone is going to care enough to look them up.

That's not the problem. All OP is doing is approximating the helicopter as pushing down a cylinder of air at uniform velocity. If you understand basic mechanics, you should be able to replicate this without having to look anything up except two-seconds-to-find numerical values like the density of air. It's what we call a "Fermi Problem."

Albeit given the bullshit OP ("magnum opus", blogging, not even a hint of what the subject is), no one should be surprised that most of the attention it got was from brainlets.

>>7938558
Why don't you define your variables there big guy.