Revising the Airspace Model for commercial drone integration
This paper is also containing superior solution exitisng Amazon's patent applications (even if those are also often based on prior art, please contact me to complete a list).
The paper also contains discussion on practical aspects of ground avoidance in US airspace.
Hi All,
Being very experienced avionics designer with significant operational drone experience including stratospheric airdrop, I have tried to contact Polish space3ac fund asking for funding. I was blocked on facebook march 2016 after asking the first question by coordinator who knew me as being whistleblower.
You can find entire entry under the link describing the idea:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9RDNOQ1MzSUxMX1U
I have revised 20-years old patent issues, found solutions and made a proposal for European Satellite Navigation Contest knowing than in 2015 their award-winning project was CAD sketch of giant quadcopter project that should be able to drop safety equipment at sea (that never left drawing stage).
ESNC contest organizers have failed to review the proposal and never contacted me, while blocking my email address on their side:
-Two hours before submission deadline (which I have met) I have received a notification “with so many new registrations in the last couple of days and the UEFA Euro still running, we decided to give you 10 days of added time to submit, complete, or improve your idea #160828”. Basically 3-month submission process for space contest was extended because of football match that evening which raises the suspicion that specific participants were receiving special attention.
-Organiser’s answer to suggestion this is against contest regulations, thay have pointed a clause where thay can reserve the right to alter any clause at any time. Since one of the clauses is non-disclosure of submissions and honest evaluation, I must assume those premises are equally volatile.
-The only feedback I was being asked for was using automated questionnaires without follow-up
-Nobody has contacted me regarding neither patent issues nor any other doubts that might arise during evaluation phase, legal aspects risks were somehow evaluated at 50-60% despite the fact I have been examining scope and validity of related patents during past 4 years. Obviously I didn’t uploaded full patent analysis for free without making sure I am dealing with professionals.
-Evaluation (only 2 diagrams with percentage points were presented https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9-O1_5eWoN9LVVMUURNeFEzYkk) contains ridiculous notes, like technological feasibility rated at 50%, despite the fact that early solutions with limited altitude reaching stable flight at 12km existed (discontinued because lack of funding at trial phase, New Zealand 2010) and there are documented amateur trials at 20km altitude (Canada, 2001) plus recent DLR research (2015 albeit using very heavy and completely impractical airframe)
-Market potential has been evaluated at 40-60% despite the idea is replacing at least 80% uses of balloon-dropped meteo probes worldwide. Nobody asked for a businessplan, there was no option to upload a businessplan when a detailed multi-variant businessplan was well prepared based on recent prices, use cases, investor capital options and various countries.
-GNSS Relevance was estimated at 60-63% even if GNSS navigation is strictly necessary component of said invention; current solutions are using satellite navigation only for wind speed reporting during ascent phase. Proposed invention is updating meteo profile both relative to moving air mass (ascent) as well as relative to any fixed ground position (descent).
-Polish region organizers stated on ESNC competition page that their own secured investor’s capital is 10 times higher than the capital they have precisely enumerated on their Polish website as invested in Polish startups which puts in doubts existence of control over money flow, particularly that one of organizing committee submission persons is an owner of a company sponsored directly by venture capital he is representing for ESNC submissions
-Polish region organizers have a history of promoting funding of exotic constructions of null scientific value, like Mars Greenhouse near Kraków – a primitive building without scientific background being made on budget allowing only most basic construction of the structure
-My submission as independent review researcher for future editions was rejected strictly because I have asked for my proposal to be analyzed by international committee, and not by regional organizers. ESNC representative has stated explicitly that if I am not going well along with local contact person, I am unfit. At this point ESNC has no experts able to evaluate aerial autonomous vehicles in Poland because of lack of professional experience.
-After the answer above, I have asked regular contact person (German nationality) for a contact with his supervisor in order to explain the situation, just to witness my email put into spam list
Following all the above, I publicly state that ESNC contest is a scam led by closed circles that are trying to trick people into submitting ideas, while keeping applicant’s personalities hidden. I can defend it in front of any court. In order to prevent the idea of being forgotten or stolen, I am publishing it in its entirety. I claim that ESNC contest in its current form is damaging to ESA and GALILEO public perception, making selection of proposals on strictly non-scientific background. Organizers have admitted they have purposely extended submission deadline for more than a week in order to allow unnamed participants to complete their submissions.
On this occasion I would like to congratulate Polish region winners for ESNC2016 http://www.esnc.info/index.php?anzeige=winner2016.html AEROBITS http://aerobits.pl/ that are aiming at providing ADS-B UAV broadcasting functionality that is already available for free here: https://flightaware.com/adsb/ . This is an interesting contrast to my submission that is based on several years of prior research verified during at least 2000 flights.
I discourage everybody from submitting to ESNC contest until said grave problems are addressed.
I am forced to make this idea public in order to parts of it being claimed by CanSat competition organizers or other patent claims that might appear.
I am among very few persons capable an willing to make this system operational.
Testing my implementation of global virtual airspace for autonomous drone navigation.
1. Grand Canyon, AZ, US
2. Sobótka mountain, S-W Poland (with a few airspace elements in the background)
3. Bellevue, WA, US
Blue net is USGL for symmetric navigation properties based on 10m DEM satellite radar and airborne LIDAR data.
Ground level is generated by obeying a few simple geometric principles that guarantee an automated system with specified climbing and cruise speed capabilities will be able to navigate safely in all directions (here 50mph, 1:10 climb slope, 1.12 max G factor).
Melown maps: a new 3D reconstruction method for interactive 3D digital surface models.
Guys, check out the newest sample obtained from the photos I have gathered almost a year ago. It took some serious research effort because the area is very difficult (many trees and vertical object) and we were testing 3D reconstruction from strictly oblique imaginery gathered during low level flight (5cm/pixel, 150m agl, used stabilised head in order to limit roll deviations).
https://www.melown.com/maps/#2
Honestly, the result is even more detailed than the results I got from CMP-SFM institute from Prague one year ago, much better than from any other method, moreover the resulting product is easily viewed within web browser. You can compare the quality of regular satellite imaginery taken at 100cm resolution surrounding this castle (and relatively coarse public 10m elevation grid in the area).
I am not 'affiliated' with them in any way, just provided the data. They are from Czech Republic.
Amazing results!
An example of our current mapping operations...
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/93148014
http://www.panoramio.com/user/2953040
Things have evolved a little since August 2010.
Historically we did that:
Motorway aerial mapping Pteryx UAV long range from Krzysztof Bosak on Vimeo.
Take a look at asena21.pl
Valentine Heart with dedication has been crafted on the sky using autonomous UAV.
Well beyond visual range, below frost point, in dense fog. Somehow it worked, over wast swamps near Wrocław, Poland (pronounciation: WrocLove).
The webpage looks like a quick mash-up but it's there. 4x3km, at 300m AGL.
A movie will come a few days later.
Raw flight recording https://vimeo.com/59659590
Hi,
I was able to obtain certain number of XBEE PRO modules at 50mW with wire antenna, no chance to get them with SMA antenna. However I would like to solder a specific connector. Unfortunately, the PCB layout is different:
Type A is for SMA, uFL and WIRE
Type B is for Small PCB patch antenna, uFL and WIRE
the second one is more popular. I was trying to figure out what is connected to what when trying to mount SMA connector, but given the fact that the SMA in xbee is sometimes mentioned to be 'Reverse Polarised SMA' I am lost about which part of the connector should be soldered to what. ohmmeter of course reveals nothing, all appears to be connected together on type B board. What the...?
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/homes/oncley/ebex/planning/RC/MP1000.html
The question is, what is that little bulb in the middle?
Hi all,
many of us are using EagleTree data recorder. Sometimes I have several logs that I need to merge between the autopilots and EagleTree. The manual states that you can contact them about file format and they will respond. Unfortunately this is not the case. Therefore maybe somebody has a clue about what the file content means:
TESTPLANE
0 0 0 255 1 0 0 0 255 1 254 0 0 1 0 0 0 255 0 0 0 1 100 74 1536 10.04 8205 1 1073758292
All Sessions
0 19456
Session 1
0 19456
Milliseconds IsEvent EventError EventData Altitude Airspeed ServoCurrent*100 Throttle PackVolt*100 Amps*100 GForceX*100 GForceY*100 GForceZ*100 Temp1*10 Temp2*10 Temp3*10 RPM RPM2 GPSLat GPSLon GPSAlt GPSSpeed GPSCourse GPSDist GPSUTC NumSats GPSFlags SpektrumHolds SpektrumLostFrames SpektrumAFades SpektrumBFades SpektrumLeftFades SpektrumRightFades GPSUTC-ASCII HDOP*10
0 1 9 14 0 0 0 0 1265 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 0.000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/06/2012,01:00:00.89 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1265 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 0.000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/06/2012,01:00:00.89 0
200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1265 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 0.000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/06/2012,01:00:00.89 0
300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1265 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 0.000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/06/2012,01:00:00.89 0
400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1265 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 0.000000000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04/06/2012,01:00:00.89 0
Obviously 19456 is just the number of samples, the rest are easily decoded ASCII data, but the line in BOLD contains some magic flags and options, one of them is related to time step. Any ideas?
EDIT: The field in red is milliseconds timestep size, it accepts .6 format also, and Milliseconds from the first column are ignored.
Not sure if the application can plot precisely timesteps like 333.333333 or will just truncate to 333.
Other fields remain a mystery.
BTW somebody mentioned
but it doesn't explain beyond:
Second Line: Data about your model’s setup, in an internal.
This line is needed to allow sharing of your data files with others.
Oh yes, for sure.
It also adds
Email us if you need more information on the file format.
Without promise of answering to that mail.
PLEASE POST HERE YOUR RECORDINGS *.FDR SO I CAN PICK DIFFERENCES COMING FROM DIFFERENT SOFTWARE VERSIONS - IT WILL BE EASIER TO REVERSE-ENGINEER THIS WAY.
...will tak place 22th to 27th May 2012 in Pałac Kultury i Nauki, Warsaw.
The exhibition will be physically located in Museum of Technology inside this monumental building.
The Museum is recently known for organising countrywide meetings that have spin-off potential and highly technological subject.
22.05.2012 12.00 - official opening in Museum of Technology
24.05.2012 16.00 - UAV laws and flight safety seminar for registered participants
25.05.2012 A contest for the best thesis with UAV in its research scope
26-27.05.2012 Multicopter demonstration for large public inside the museum
Note: polish official acronym for UAV is BSL (Unmanned System, Flying)
Pictured: could be like Mr Hajduk's plane with analog camera circa 1997? Low accuracy guess.
Almost all polish UAV makers will have their (small) booth. Several full-scale (maybe unequipped internally) UAVs will be on display.
Therefore if you are passing near Warsaw Central Station, let the traffic jam fade and step into the tallest building in sight.
http://www.pansa.pl/euro2012/index.php
http://ais.pansa.pl/?lang=_pl&top_menu=top_ais&left_menu=menu_ais&opis=euro2012
and in particular http://ais.pansa.pl/pliki/supplement/EP_Sup_2012_17_en.pdf
says (rougly, read details by yourself) not a single unauthorised aerial vehicle (not even RC model) since 1PM within 50km circle from stadium during the day of major meeting
plus
permanent no-fly zones in several city centres and footbal training camps of 2-3km diameter during a month.
Restrictions end rougly July 2nd.
50km cricle is quite large; you might be surprised to break the law during local filming somehwere in the village if a major match is taking place.
So forget your engineering diplomma, familiarize yourself with chips and beer then sit down patiently in order to watch the TV transmission organised by EU governments as 22 guys run around randomly spitting on the grass, or the police will be chasing you.
Hi all, I wonder what is the availability on the market of semi-industrial grade RC helicopter bodies.
For example like this one, Aquila UAV from UAVS Poland.
Is it possible to buy something resembling this off the shelf, with holding space for a gimbal cam in the nose?
2012-04-23 at 19PM GMT+1, FLEXIPILOT (my own closed-source development) with special Terrain Follower firmware, controlling EasyUAV, has made its first long duration loiter at 1.5-3m AGL above sloped terrain. Loiter diameter was around 110m.
10m Flight took place in steady weather, while norhtern part of the field was 4-5m higher than southern part of the loop.
The autopilot exploited 3.5m of this range, maintaining reliably airplane altitude above uneven field borders. The barometric pressure, exhibiting usual long-term drift during 8min loiter, has confirmed aggressive altitude changes spanning 4m once autopilot flew into ground proximity zone.
Sensors used is a mixture of specific optical and ultrasound sensor, modified by me.
The effect of brutal pitch changes has destabilised flight speed, slightly 'smearing' the flight track.
Hi all.
I have made a long run at 'human flight level'.
The machine is basically EasyStar with FLEXIPILOT but the discussion applies to anybody using typical hobby grade ESC. The plane is equipped with RAY 2845 inrunner motor and RAY 25 ESC, same as JETI ECO 25. Runs on Kokam 4Ah SPLB 30C. The plane is equipped with humidity and external temperature sensor, as well as additional temperature sensor for barometer compensation.
The flight took place with average cruise speed 12m/s (46km/h), the wind was around 1m/s (4km/h) and took place late afternoon.
On one hand the humidity was increasing, very slightly decreasing lift conditions:
At the same time the temperature was dropping, making air thicker, improving lift conditions:
This meant that while Standard Altitude depending only on pressure was contant,
density altitude decreased by negligible 50m (lower is better, less is more and time is infinite):
Overall, thanks to very calm weather and excellent PID tuning also, long term altihold was within one meter (slightly above my head). The spike at the middle was temporary switch to RETHOME for pilot's amusement (got bored).
As time passed by, battery voltage was dropping
And total energy of the plane (kinetic+potential divided by mass) was like this (constant):
This meant, that with constant plane geometry and aerodynamics, roughly the same amount of power had to be injected to the engine - it was autopilot's job.
Indeed the PWM throttle output signal (10000=1ms) was rising gradually, 'ordering more ESC output' in order to compensate for dropping voltage:
Power injected is P=U*I, and one would expect P to be constant, yet... here comes the surprise
Looks like electric power input to the motor was jagged, because the ESC could command only larger jumps of throttle... You can see amperage sensor confirming the stepped amperage increase, compensating for smooth voltage drop:
As a final confirmation, the RPM sensor revealed that the throttle was basically jumping +/-60RPM what could be even heard (now I know where does this sound comes from)
if we assume that the whole span of RPM control of this ESC is some 0-15000RPM, you get 15000/60=barely 250 steps, what is some 8 bits! To be more precise, I would describe the situation, it is not ESC having problem with RPM hold (which is not even trying to do) but rather having stepped amperage output control that also drifts a little with voltage. Since this UAV flies only between 10000 and 14000 RPM (below 9000RPM the motor generates only a tiny thrust) you actually have 4/15*250=67 possible and useful output amperage values.
By sounds that I hear from the propeller, probably all popular ESC brands behave less or more like this (what few people have witnessed because few ppl are doing routine loiters that low). .
Now since you are at the end of this analysis, a question for 10 intergalactic points:
Which ESC behave like this and how to identify those that do better?
Hi all,
I am unable to find exact information about servo tolerance.
For example very popular Futaba 3001 tend to have a lot of loose because ot the gear precision, yet when they run all is ok (besides that they are slow).
On the other hand Hitec HS-425 appears to me to have null loose.
Hitec HS-225 have little loose and is very fast servo, but in order to hold its position requires huge power.
Most digital servos tend to be either slow and fast, but have precise gears. Yet, they consume a lot of power to hold their position.
My question is: how to find a servo that will not be buzzing, and will hold its precision with minimal current draw, without any slop on control surfaces. Typical RC modeler budget.
Any ideas what is the rule of finding such servos? Even brand names give me bad surprises. I guess the solution would be with some specific gear ratio+tight gear tolerance, but how to define it? Hitec and Futaba preferred, I would like to find the rule rather than example.
Is the gear precision deteriorating with global economy progressing?
My fav looks HS-425BB, but I don;t know why so cheap for the purpose, and where is the catch thah other servos cannot get this precision at this price levels.
Not sure if it was posted before, looks it wasn't. Enjoy.
Hi,
we have performed RC range simulations for 2 systems:
35MHz, 2.5m mean antenna height, 1m receiver height (vertical mast on the UAV)
and
2.4GHz, 2m TX antenna height, 0.5m receiver height (short antennas)
in order to simulate it over a vast terrain we know and use.
The range plot was made from 4km2 elevation model made by Pix4D and Pteryx UAV.
Treat it as a kind of reminder of what happens when landing using FPV.
We know the results are valid since they match our experience
and measurements of range at several altitude levels.
We don't name the systems but mentioned RC systems are the best hobby grade you can buy off the shelf without law & power restrictions.
Things look perfect at flight altitude of 5m, but even with slightly undulated area the horror starts during touchdown, you get anything from 300m to 2km range. The area pictured is 2x2km.
Atmosferic wave diffraction is accounted for (negligible impact here).
ftp://ftp.aerialrobotics.eu/2011-05-18%20czyste/czyste1_txrange_2m.kmz
866MHz 100mW modems were tested and have shown similar range as 35MHz range at ground level (but only with huge 35MHz antenna, strictly vertical). The plot really shows where we have 95% modem bandwidth or good RC control, when overall low control latency is required: during the landing.
Vickers Wellington as UAV
Bi-motor airplane serving as test platform for FLEXIPILOT.
Used for testing single-engine failures and tuning.
Elevator, differential ailerons, no rudder.
Endurance 50min with one battery.
Cruise speed 50km/h.
Shown loiters at low altitude since at typical cruise altitude of 200m it is almost impossible to track a flying object on the sky with zoomed camera.
The plane is a custom construction, only one in existence in this scale and make (bought on a polish web auction, made by experienced RC modellers from Gdansk, Poland, refitted with autopilot by me).
The weather was a little bit windy, pity it didn't looked as majestic as usually - a few nervous autopilot reactions were inevitable trying to hold constant circle patter over ground.
Why all this? Because it can be done. Testing is the best thing.
Fournier RF5 as UAV
A low-wing stall-prone (due to specific airfoil) motoglider, flown without Pitot Tube.
Endurance 30-45min with one 4Ah battery, but it is so efficient it would fly easily for well above 1.5h.
Yet, I don't like the fact you have to throw it overhead so it will stay limited.
Cruise speed 45km/h.
Shown loiters at low altitude since at typical cruise altitude of 200m it is almost impossible to track a flying object on the sky with zoomed camera.
