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.
Comments
@Ben
"cannot distinguish FPV RC flying from tested and fully automated system" - I don't know when I implied that, our system is fully autonomous
I have implied mine is fully autonomous. Yours is not and from difficulty standpoint it is 100:1 ratio.
"it's better, but it has been stated so it cannot be patented by anybody else." - nor by you, since there's prior art all over the place
"cannot distinguish FPV RC flying from tested and fully automated system" - I don't know when I implied that, our system is fully autonomous
"no open source nor commercial autopilot can do at this moment and for any forseeable future" - whether or not this is relevant to our system, it isn't true
"you are slightly past weight budget if you use any battery to power it." - our potential payload mass margins say otherwise
I realise you want to take your idea to market but please stop assuming you're the only one here with whatever insights you think you've gleamed from the industry
@Monroe King Modular fully automated stratospheric delivery of small objects used for meteo sensing and science. Read the proposal, last section. Also, you can attend my presentation prepared for ESNC, this is much more specific. Alas, they refused hear details so there is no presentation online. Doing it with a rocket you are rougly 1000-10000 times past budget.
@Ben, I am sorry to say it harsh but I am looking for investors not usurpers who have no clue what they are talking about and cannot distinguish FPV RC flying from tested and fully automated system containing necessary proprietary code doing certain essential things no open source nor commercial autopilot can do at this moment and for any forseeable future. This includes processing meteo dat in certain way and navigating at stratospheric levels with reusable electronics, this includes disposing off certain sensors like airspeed sensor. Besides your flight computer is only small part of the control system, you are slightly past weight budget if you use any battery to power it. Ben, the problem is there are 4 geniuses every year that strap commercial autopilot to whatever they find in model shop, then perform some tinkering with modems in the air and announce sucessful PhD, This is not the case here. The idea clearly mentions its weight/cost relationship to state of the art research projects and documents it with historical projects that were alse a major breaktrough in simplicity and operation comapred to existing research prototypes. The closest one was of course DataBird, which was unfortunately too complex and lacking certain aerodynamic and most importantly fligth control properties as seen in the logs.
The statements of this project are not clear enough. Can you state what this is and what the goals are specifically without all the words?
I have flown back from 30km. I have carried a rocket to 30km and launched at that altitude and I'm working on a rocket powered X12A for a trip to space and return launched from a balloon.
But what is your purpose you say is commercial?
"The iddea is NOT feasible without complte control system weighting more than around 100g."
"ARTECH is rubbish for the task, anything above 100USD is rubbish for the task. HABLEG is rubbish for this task for the same reason Besides HABLEG flight was NOT autonomous, it was tuned mid-air. We are taking about business application and how to cut down price of every single chip knowing which one to cut dow, not about some amateur's mash-up."
It could be good to start by just stating what's the ESCN contest, and what you want to do.
Now it's a bit clearer, you don't want to patent something, you want funding for a system that weights less than 100gr and costs less than 100$, which is autonomous to go in the stratosphere and come back.
You don't want to state how you plan to do it, so I don't know what you expect from this forum ? If you want some help, people are ready to help, and if you want to show something you've done people are ready to listen.
But it looks like you don't want any help or share any information. You just post to be sure that someone else we don't know is prevented from patenting an idea we don't know.
@ben I see you haven't looked at the idea in detail.
http://rcexplorer.se/projects/2013/03/fpv-to-space-and-back/ is not autonomous, worthless for buisness application.
http://diydrones.com/group/b-l-u-a-s/forum/topics/first-commands-fo... is not autonomous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpBnurznFio is not autonomous, those are RC toys.
@MarcS
1. balloon probes are not designed to be reusable (would mean to design and introduce a new one in an established market... think WMO acceptance) and it would cost time to refurbish for every flight..
You are partially right, but at least Vaisala offers refurbishment and local recalibration and reconditioning stations. I am not discussing another solutions at thsi point.
I have been thiking about WMO acceptance. I am not asking for 20KEUR for student's contraption not 100KEUR for a CAD drawing.
If you could do it in a garage, it would have been made in a garage.
If it could be made as side effect of PhD thesis while tinkering around a few open source project you can buy for 100USD each, it would have been done. But it is not that easy as every single mass manufacturing and prototyping of an UAV for which you CANNOT afford uplink, any really useful realtime downlink, basically you have hit/miss approach. But I made it through. Call it rocket science but it is not. If you would like to make it based on HABLEG, you would need to dump every single onboard luxury. You wouldn't succeed at the end, producing control system weighting around 200-300g of what is left there. And just at that point you would face cost cutting (can you swap pixhawk processor for a cheaper one? How much? Have you tried to estimate it?).
I have published it here knowing that there will be a dozen of freshmans poitning thay got idea before then another then another. The question is who of you have scientific and manufacturing base to do it. I do and this is why I object to rejection in competition that claims to be based on science and technology, in access for publicity and funding.
If you dont uderstand which part of this fligth carries unique, not patented behaviour – it's better, but it has been stated so it cannot be patented by anybody else.
If you ask about novelty in this, I tell you that at least ability to report wind profile in both directions (up and down) is novel.
I'm concerned to managed to work out how much our airframe costs (you're miles off). Luckily our flight computer is around 60g, so to me it sounds like we're on the money :)
ARTECH is rubbish for the task, anything above 100USD is rubbish for the task. HABLEG is rubbish for this task for the same reason Besides HABLEG flight was NOT autonomous, it was tuned mid-air. We are taking about business application and how to cut down price of every single chip knowing which one to cut dow, not about some amateur's mash-up.
I am NOT claiming to be the first. I am claiming that I did did the research that others didn't, naively thinking they could strap any commercial or ad-hoc autopilot to a drone. If you want papers, I can bring you toilet papers from 1996 doing research up to a few km altitude on that subject. And then I can tell you about new zealand solution mae by one guy that was almost close, except miscalculated business plan and null research funding. About this paper, this is just rubbish when you look inside a drone. Those guys strapped several components around for a heavy worthless sytem. Compare to my minimal AUW platform in my application. The shape is not stratospheric, but I wont publish what I have sent up there. ESNC contest is not about posting NEW ideas. It is positng about feasible ideas. The iddea is NOT feasible without complte control system weighting more than around 100g. Concernign GPSboomerang it was not advanced anough to account fro pressure change well enough to fly controllably above 12km altitude, and this is major difference here that makes all pixhawk solutions just a chilplay and ad-hpc mashup.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next