Extending the Range of Jetson ONE 

it's actually really old, they tried it in the late 60's. it's technical term is "heavier then air-aircraft".

Oh yeah? What batteries are those ? Pixie dust batteries? Chemical batteries don’t store electrons. They make them. That’s why they suck. There is no free lunch.

@@joeshumo9457 OMG your post is such horseshit babble and factless. E-VTOL is a new class of vehicle that is coming out THIS YEAR! electric 100- 250 miles range VTOL EV aircraft. you're opinion of battery tech is like 20 years behind the times. like the tesla S plaid they just tested in northern Michigan with a 752 mile range. By the end of THIS decade you wont even be able to buy a new petrol based vehicle, and for the record, EV's already surpass Diesel sales and for a dam good reason. stop holding us back with misinformation and ignorance. EV is superior in EVERY way now. aircraft are next. they already have 100% EV freight trains, and ocean liners. I can't wait for the "MANNED" drone races coming. they already built one.

Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MrBPiTHh0fk.html

Can't wait till we can go to the battery museum 👉🤯👈 humasn are still so dumb thinking inside of thoer little boxes 🙄 😒 😑 🙃

And at some point you realise you're building a Zeppelin with a Jetson One ballast.

@@hurrdurrmurrgurr Ha, yes In terms of dimensions - though obviously not the same in mass - ^oo^

What about using rotors with 4 or more blades? Any improvement there?

Any way to incorporate a foldable/extendable autogyro rotor and have the lift rotors tilt to push forward at altitude?

@@GaelTharLear That's an interesting idea, ^oo^

Or 4 bladed carbon fiber propelers,a bigger batery and free energy generator from TheCrazyChannelinEnglish to charge the batery.

A blimp doesn't necessarily have to completely neutralize the weight of the vehicle, any reduction in the lift required to take it off the ground would increase the range. A smaller blimp would still increase the range to some extent.

@@burgerbobbelcher I agree; and a blimp that is in a flying wing/lifting body configuration would be even more beneficial to increasing flight times than a conventional "blimp" design.

Haven't expected to see you here, Ethan!

could you please explain your reasoning?

@@jdcampolargo I don't know if the cycle life of Lithium Sulfur is long enough yet for a daily commuting vehicle, I'd have to research it. There are however several companies selling them in various sizes. They are currently sometimes used on larger UAVs as well, due to a better energy density and reasonable power level.

What kind of batteries does it use? I'm sure they're using the best

@@Max-kn9yi I figure the Jetson1 uses lithium polymer batteries, but I have never looked it up. I have the world's only fully ion propelled unmanned vehicles with onboard power on my channel. They usually use 37 to 110mAh cells in pairs. They are very lightweight.

Thanks for the tips!

Just go the total donation and revert to RC.

And you could land and fill up gas at any gas station. Then you could go on long trips anywhere!

more energy dense fuel should help as well.

@@kakerake6018 Zip fuels? or nuclear?

My pleasure!

Sounds great!

send it also to me im curious

7:46 how did the balloon ride land?

Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MrBPiTHh0fk.html

Why not attach the blimp design of the airlander 10 for further aerodynamyc lift?

Customized Single person blimp is a great idea. I would love to have one.

Why?

Motors don't need to get much smaller, batteries do.

Solar cell? Can you explain your reasoning?

@@jdcampolargo There are now newer technology solar panels that are light weight as well as energy storage cells using heat, light, temperature difference, etc that could be utilized for higher efficiency.

Toroidal props?

Thank you

Its not meant for flying at high altitudes or used for commuting. It will be only allowed in private rural areas

Glad you liked it!

This is cooler

Great suggestion!

Glad you enjoyed it

Really interesting answer, could you explain a bit further if you have time? thanks

afaik biblades are the most efficient

@@oculicious Don't even numbered blades make more noise, because of harmonics? Odd numbered blades are better.

Ducted fan does indeed increase the thrust. The nacelle or the duct in forward flight becomes a problem. Its like a drum that is being pushed through the air. So the drag increases considerably. That is why it was dropped from Jetson one

You're welcome!

Also, consider combining supercapacitors with batteries for load spikes. This also makes batteries live longer before replacement.

Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MrBPiTHh0fk.html

@@airmobe4309 I like it! Where are you guys located?

you can get infinite hydrogen from water with electrolysis

@@kingmasterlord Yes, Hydrogen can be used as a lifting gas. Hydrogen has been avoided for combustion reasons in manner aircraft.

Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MrBPiTHh0fk.html

@@airmobe4309 Sorry, blimps are too subject to wind for my liking. The balloon shaped envelope in the Blimp Airmobe proposal will be very slow, the only cross-country flights made will be downwind.

@@olsonspeed Yes, our flight will be 50 km/h maximum. That's a good drag ratio for electrical economy, a smooth flight.

@@neonpowar3766 I understand your point, thanks for commenting. Open top cars have close aerodynamics to hard top ones. Using a helmet is still confined, your body will need a flight costume in order to not loose heat. Of course in a 40 min flight at low altitude that may not be an issue but in a 2 hours flight, well... that's another thing. While most better performing drones have a full aerodynamic body, all the bars on this have a single function. Translate all the surfaces in active surfaces and you have an overall better performance. Look at formula 1 cars in this season and you will understand the role of a cockpit in the aerodynamics at general.

It doesn't need any of that unless you're trying to set some sort of silly record. Only in the upper 25% of its flight envelope will aerodynamics come into play, and at that point you're already asking a lot from the battery and motor...which means your most efficient power settings will be at a speed where drag is negligible. It only has a top speed of 60mph or so. What that means is if you're looking for endurance and getting beyond that 20min mark, you won't be flying at a speed where drag is going to hinder your efforts...and whatever drag you do encounter is only going to reduce your range, not your endurance. There's a reason why aerodynamics aren't really high on the list for most helicopter designs.

@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Sorry to come back to this two months after the fact but you are completely missing something. Reducing drag reduces the power needed to push an object through air or liquid. Thus the idea is actually a great one with one asterisk. Weight. All of that aerodynamic body paneling adds weight. The weight counteracts, and even potentially overcomes if too heavy, the gains from making the body more aerodynamic. Aerodynamic efficiency doesn't just improve speed. It also improves range which is why almost every EV car ever made has a CoD below .3 whereas most ICE cars have a CoD above .3. ICE cars aren't emphasized for aerodynamic efficiency because it isn't relevant enough to the consumers when most ICE cars have a range of 300-400 miles. Something that was found to be the limits of how far a majority of people are willing to go on a car trip before they have to get out of the car and move around way back in the 90s. Electric cars are trying to reach that same range figure to remove the fear of a lack of range from the consumer in the US market. To do that EVs are being designed using every trick in the book known to squeak out as much range as possible. This includes maximizing aerodynamic efficiency. Thus adding an aerodynamic shell will actually do a number to increase the range/endurance of the Jetson ONE so long as it is done with extremely lightweight materials. Currently it might only add an extra ~20% of range at best given what the Mythbusters found when giving a bike a more aerodynamic shell. That is roughly a 4 minute increase from 20 minutes. That doesn't sound like a lot but that percentage increase gets more and more significant the more range you are able to eek out of any given design. 30 minutes becomes 36 minutes all things being equal. 60 becomes 72 all things being equal. On and on. Add tilting ducted fans optimized for Jetson ONE with a very lightweight aerodynamic shell and the range/endurance can go from 20 minutes currently to potentially somewhere in the 25-30 minutes range. The weight would likely increase to be around 100kgs vs the ~88kg that it currently is but if the benefit is anywhere above a 10% increase in range then I would happily make that tradeoff. The second relevant question would then be how much do those changes increase the per unit price to buy? All of this would likely push the cost up to, if not beyond, 150k. That is just my estimate though.

@@rainsilent What you seemed to miss is that aerodynamics won't come into play for range since your best cruise speed is going to be below the speed in which a low drag airframe would be beneficial in that aspect. At slow speeds, a brick has roughly the same air resistance as an ideal laminar flow body of the same size and weight, so the aerodynamic benefits would be meaningless. At higher speeds, aerodynamics will affect range, as drag is a cubic function of speed, and a 200mph Jetson 1 would certainly benefit from every aerodynamic advantage possible....but it'll never fly at those speeds. It's like saying a farmer will see efficiency gains from having enclosed tires and an aerodynamic shell on his tractor to make it streamlined. Do you think a helicopter in hover is going to hover longer if it had an aerodynamic body? It wouldn't make a bit of difference, as there's no air to resist. At some point in its slow speed regime, aerodynamics stop playing an important role in the range of any vehicle. If aerodynamic panels on a Jetson added zero weight, sure, you're likely to see an increase in range, a very negligible increase in range though, perhaps a percent at most due to how slow it flies. The problem is, weight is a far more important factor in a quad rotor like this, as it's using thrust as its sole source of lift, so for every extra pound you add, you're also taxing the battery reserve. The added weight of those panels and associated fasteners and tabs welded to the tubing and all of the other associated hardware will likely be on the order of 15-20lbs (this is based on a similar surface area of panels that I added to a race vehicle, weighed before and after the mods). 15-20lbs is nearly 10% of the Jetson 1's weight, and that makes a rather substantial change in performance. So that percent or so of theoretical range suddenly got negated by the additional weight, to the point where it will now likely have less range. Add more stuff like tilt rotors to the mix, and suddenly it's a completely different aircraft with a different flight regime and purpose. With the added weight and complexity, simply replacing fixed rotors with tilting rotors is going to drop your endurance considerably, and that's going to negatively affect the purpose of what most people would use the Jetson for. It's certainly not a feasible transport vehicle, it's a fly in circles with no point other than fun vehicle, and endurance is the name of the game there. Make it fly faster and further with tiltrotors and panels, not only have you lost the original purpose of it, you've also lost the target customer because it's no longer a slow speed craft with longer endurance that anyone can fly, and the average person will be too heavy to fly it without going over max takeoff weight. Just short, fast straight line trips from A to B in a craft so small and payload limited that you can't even pack a PB&J in. Sounds so useful and fun :/ At this point, we're splitting hairs trying to get every additional second of flight time and every inch of additional range from electric craft, but this generation of experimental craft are nearing the max theoretical performance possible with current battery tech. We're not really going to see much improvement beyond this until we get a battery chemistry capable of a paradigm shift.

@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Actually you are wrong. Yes, drag increases exponentially with speed but that doesn't instantly make most of the speed range of the Jetson ONE as irrelevant because it is traveling too slowly for it to matter. Even a 30mph cruising speed will provide a useful boost to range with improved aerodynamics. Sure, at speeds around 15mph and slower aerodynamic efficiency doesn't matter but the Jetson ONE very likely has a cruise speed of at least 30mph. Thus the cruise speed is very likely high enough that aerodynamic efficiency will have a factor. I am saying this based upon studies from NASA studying aerodynamics and its relevance for cars at city speeds, a la 30-45mph. As for those panels you applied I want to ask, what was the material and the size of the vehicle? Jetson ONE has an aluminum frame and carbon fiber nearly everything else. Given that we are talking outer paneling if they kept to their tendencies the outer panels would also be carbon fiber sans something clear to see through for windows. The carbon fiber material would likely add up to a total of less than 5 pounds with 5 pounds being a very conservative high limit. I've handled large chunks of carbon fiber for aircraft and cars. They are extremely light. You are way overestimating the weight increase because you are judging by using material that Jetson wouldn't use based upon their current materials used and what you used the materials you used on. Your personal example is not applicable in this scenario.

Not with the added weight of said enclosure.

@@joeshumo9457 That depends what it's made out of. Carbon-fibre composites can be both very strong and very lightweight. Worth considering too, that the speed records for bicycles are held by fully-enclosed machines - the reduction in drag more than offsets the increased weight.

Hold everything. Recent advances just made things look even better for using aluminum. However, instead of Aluminum-Air it now looks like it will be an "Enhanced Altered Aluminum Ion" or (Ea2I) battery chemistry. Boasting an energy density of more than 1500 Watt-hours (Wh) per liter, the new chemistry is promised to delivery more than 600Wh per kilogram. Claims are that a 150kW pack of solid-state aluminum-ion batteries will weigh 565kg, deliver 1200km of EV range and last at least 20,000 charge-discharge cycles. The company that's ready to bring these to market is Saturnose. Saturnose also claims the new chemistry will boast at least three times the charge-discharge cycles of the best current lithium-ion batteries. Looks like this is for real and should be available within 2 years.

Riiiiiight. Suuuuure. Yawn.

Better to just use a generator and regular gas. Then you can refill at any gas station. Eventually liquid hydrogen will be the best solution.

Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MrBPiTHh0fk.html

ZMC-2 (ideal machine)

that's what happened in the late 60's when they tried it with full sized helicopter engine pods off huey's. 4 pods, 8 engines total. the wind pushed the blades and balloon together...... but who knows maybe someone can make it work better.

Glad you like them!

No doubt!

There are. They are called Hybrid Airship or Hybrid Air vehicles. Part of the lift is provided by the buoyant force and part from aerodynamic lift.

Look up LMH-1 for example

see book..."The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" a 1971 proven concept. or, look into "turtle airships" (that's me)

lighter than air flight is much less risky and energy intensive

WHAT WAS THAT???

or electolysize H-H in situ

Turbine generators are much smaller and lighter (but less efficient) so I think they are the best to use here. Similar to the XTI Trifan 600