Why Buy A Drone When You Can Have This Blimp?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2016
- The makers hope this blimp will replace drones for aerial photography.
Subscribe! ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
See more on our website: www.vocativ.com
Follow us on Twitter: / vocativ
Like us on Facebook: / vocativ
I never thought in my life I would see a man beating a blimp with rake
Me too! ha ha ha ha
Considering it’s carrying neither crew nor passengers, why not fill it with cheap, abundant hydrogen?
Hydrogen diffuses through fewer materials and is more buoyant, meaning a broader choice of (potentially lighter) blimp materials and the possibility for heavier payloads.
Plus helium is becoming scarce on Earth and is needed for medical and science applications, while hydrogen here is cheap and abundant.
It’s not like your payload would be smoking a cigarette and cause a mini Hindenburg disaster…?
And also requires one half of the displacement
Exactly.
This also could be useful to carry stuff over hard terrain. And hydrogen could be generated using solar panels in remote areas
Hydrogen is bad PR. You can at least say you are using helium unlike Hindenburg. With hydrogen…well your defense will just sound like it are a Hindenburg enthusiast to normal folk cuz it’s too much science and history.
0:33 Why u beating him its so sad :(
I think this is a reasonable approach to air mapping!
drones based on airships are really very profitable. It's strange that no one is taking this seriously.
Just me and you
South Central Alaska - Cool
On weddings guests like to hear a music and vows not annoying buzz above there heads
Very interesting. I get it, aerial photography is the purpose, obviously.
Guess that should have been in the title due to most to all of the (comparison) comments.
I like it!
Multiple words: Seriously. Where the fvck is the kickstarted link?
I wonder what came of this...
We have the technology to make safer airships twice the size of the Hindenburg and we choose to make tiny ones to take pictures.
Maybe they are just using the sales of small airships to fund the creation of large airships?
It's the economic incentive or rather lack thereof. Sadly, aerodynamic are simply much better at almost every aspect. Need some heavy lift? Use wings. Need to get somewhere fast? Wings. Need something small, nimble, and versatile? Rotating wings. The only place where dirigibles win at is that they can have some absolutely insane endurance levels, and that's because they use less to no energy in staying aloft. Even then, high aspect ratio, lightweight aerofoils do get respectably high endurance levels. So much so that it is enough for most practical applications. And in the extremes, some are even able to match dirigibles with a near limitless flight time by using solar recharging.
At such price it's better to do homemade blimp
Yeah but I recommend Kevlar for it's material. Also helium is pretty pricy.
Two words: Tropical Winds
Three words: weak normal wind
One word: poopdeck
Crappy music....aaargh!
So just to be clear. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen gas. Very light gas but also highly flammable. Helium gas is used now for safety.
Since it's an unmanned blimp, why not use hydrogen? It's cheap, abundant and lighter. Save the helium for medical usage, not to take photographs.
Chinese asked this same question
One word - Hindenberg!
Just kiddin'. It's obviously fun, but a quad is far more maneuverable and stable I would think ;)
XpertCameraMan hindenburg ,oder ?
Im a savage Jah ;)
naturlish man kan doch ein kleines fahrad kaufen und bis space fliegen - hehehhehe my skillz
Yeah, as long you're using Kevlar and filled it with helium, it's all good. I think all the blimp needs is a propeller. Likely a common house fan can do it's work.
Nah I prefer the drone, the blimp takes time to inflate and it's darn slow, I'd rather use a fast noisy drone, its easy to start at a single press of a button, but it's my opinion
Blimps can be made like the Hindenberg, so if one tank blows, the rest are still intact. The Hindenberg disaster was a psyop,. so humanity would never use lighter than air gasses for transportation again. We could all easily have mini-blimps in our driveways, and float into the sky, and travel as the crows fly straight to are destinations. If the speed was kept down, it would be safe, and they could be designed so they would just bounce off each other. Solar panels could cover the blimps, and they could be powered by electricity, using either compressed air, or propellers, or both propellers for slow speed, and compressed air for higher speeds...or slow. Compressed air motors run on AIR, which is everywhere available, you just have to compress it into tanks, and control the outflow. This technology is so freaking obvious, that most people who are much more educated and intelligent than me just won't be able to wrap their minds around it. We are lied to about virtually EVERYTHING, so always think for yourself and question your assumptions...!!
The sky is but an ocean that laps at everyone's door. said by someone smarter than I.
lolz, it would have to be over a hundred cubic meters to carry one person. good luck getting that into your driveway.
@@jonathan6015 20 ft in diameter it can go over your house and if it was in your drive way and say overhanging your lawn its not like it will crush the grass or anything. You can also just pump the gas to a tank and it will more than fit any where a car will.
A tethered drone can stay up in the air for days. The only advantage this has is the lack of noise.
It has another advantage over a tether. It isn't as range limited, so you could maybe climb higher. Where wings require an elliptical flight path, some slower than others, the dirigible can hover in place with equal (if not higher) efficiency as an aerofoil moving forward. That means it would beat out rotorcraft in that regard too. The problem comparative is size and cost.