h a l f b a k e r yBuy 1/4, get 1/4 free.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Patrol Robot / Drone Hybrid
I like the idea of police or delivery robots patrolling the neighborhood, but not peering over my fence watching me sunbathe. | |
I know this is a weird one but hear me out.
The idea is to have a hybrid of an arial drone and a ground robot, the two portions being connected with a cable, so you could think of it as a 7 foot robot with a very flexible neck, the head being suspended by propellers.
The purpose of this would
simply to be keeping that drone portion in public areas but out of people's private business. It could also temporarily us the drone portion to assist going over curbs, up and down stairs etc. It could see a staircase, dive for a second, rise up to gain momentum and pull up the bottom portion one stair at a time.
Now if there was an actual police emergency, the drone could disconnect and follow criminals efficiently which a ground robot couldn't.
Again, the main point is to keep the skies over our neighborhoods and downtowns free from drones unless there's an emergency, which I think is pretty important.
M4
https://www.youtube...watch?v=S4eQXXxUnNE
[a1, Dec 14 2023]
[link]
|
| |
The technology part is relatively easy. M4 (link) takes a different approach than you described, but shows a concept for robots that could be mainly limited to the ground while still being able to get over obstacles. |
|
| |
But keeping the skies over our neighborhoods and downtowns free from drones? How do you feel about every other thing that flies over every day? |
|
| |
Are they ten feet away from me and peering through my windows at night? Then I don’t support them. |
|
| |
The reason to have the “long neck” is because if it’s on the ground it can’t see anything. This is a compromise so it can see what in needs to without making the neighborhood a creepy drone zone. |
|
| |
Okay, so it's a matter of degree. I agree I wouldn't want police peering right into windows as a general rule, but in an emergency it might be necessary. |
|
| |
But that's a lower ceiling than "keeping the skies clear" and I think you're talking about drawing the line a little higher than 10 feet. How do you feel about a police helicopter flying 100 feet over your house or backyard? Or a drone 400 feet over your backyard? 100? |
|
| |
Oddly, FAA part 107 lists a MAXIMUM altitude of 400' for small drones but I can't find a minimum. Do you know if there is one? Should there be? |
|
| |
If there was a minimum, the drone would be unable to take off or land. |
|
| |
A bit like how it is legal to park on the pavement but not to drive on it... Presumably all the pavement parkers bunny hop their cars up. |
|
| |
Also what is the altitude of a robot tethered drone? Unless it bunny hops up the kerb, you could argue its altitude is zero even if it is on a 150m tether |
|
| |
//in an emergency it might be necessary.// |
|
| |
Right so that’s when the flying part could detach. |
|
| |
I’d add a flashing light like they have on police cars in such a situation, make it clear there’s an actual police emergency, it’s not just prowling around peeping into people's windows. |
|
| |
// If there was a minimum, the drone would be unable to take off or land // |
|
| |
True of any aircraft unless you make specific exceptions. Relevant regulations in USA are full of qualifiers: |
|
| |
Minimum safe altitudes: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: |
|
| |
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. |
|
| |
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. |
|
| |
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. |
|
| |
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— |
|
| |
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and |
|
| |
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. |
|
| |
When the two parts were attached it would bunny hop, (good description) enough to get over a curb or up and down stairs so maybe a foot or two. Then it detaches and turns in its revolving red light to engage in emergency situations. |
|
| |
The altitude of the drone portion would be 6 or 7 feet when connected to the ground portion of the unit. |
|
| |
// The altitude of the drone portion would be 6 or 7 feet when connected to the ground portion of the unit // |
|
| |
That could still look into many windows on the ground floor. |
|
| |
I appreciate that you want hope to ensure some degree of privacy protection from drones. But I don't think the hardware limitations you're proposing will be much help. Especially not when there are already zillions of drones that can legally fly right over your house, as low as they want, and it's illegal to shoot them down. At least in the USA. |
|
| |
Would you prefer a stronger regulatory and enforcement solution for that bigger issue? |
|
| |
There's already trespassing regulation against peeping toms, no matter what they're using, don't want to add to the problem. |
|
| |
These couldn't look into any areas any person couldn't peer into. Obviously it wouldn't go onto private property unless there was a legitimate reason to. |
|
| |