The Bluetooth Helicopter: Why?

[Pat Logsdon]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3579232.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3579232.stm</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/logsdon_20040823_btcopter.jpg" /> <br /><br />Our story begins in Japan, as many stories do. For some reason, a company best known for watches and printers decided that building a tiny helicopter was a good idea. Apparently having <b>just</b> a tiny helicopter wasn't good enough (maybe their friends in the Tiny Helicopter Making Club made fun of them?), so they equipped their creation with a bluetooth radio. It would be kind of cool if they could control the helicopter in real-time via bluetooth, but alas, the protocol is just used to send a one-time, pre-programmed set of instructions to the helicopter. I guess they didn't want it to plummet from the sky 30 feet from the operator. Pansies. ;)<br /><br />What I'm having trouble with is the practical application here. The only thing I can think of is that it could be used to airlift very small insects for very short distances. Other than that, I've got nothin'. How about you? Any ideas? <i>Besides </i>the obvious search and rescue? :mrgreen:

[Fishie]

Either to FUTUREPROOF it or failing that just to please SeanH

[OSUKid7]

Definely in the W?BIC category. :lol:

[Dolphin]

Fun Toy!

I would love to buy one that had real time control...Say $200?

[dean_shan]

Either to FUTUREPROOF it or failing that just to please SeanH

:rofl:

[Jonathan1]

Several thoughts.
1. Espionage use or practical military applications for building surveillance or deployment of bomblets that float to the ground and wait to be activated. Imagine a Galaxy transport dropping these in an urban environment. 50,000 of these things float down to the ground and sit there with a prox sensor. When the “good guys” (I’ll keep it generic for PC purposes.) come in they are all wearing BT transmitters that disable the devices when they get in range. So walking down a street littered with such munitions is hazardous for the “bad guys” but easy for the “good guys”
2. Commercial use in inspecting an area that isn’t reachable without going through the hassle of getting a ladder. Example would be to check out a roof for damage after a storm or something. Or possibly media use. Imagine the scene of a burning house or something. After everyone is evacuated the TV van deposits several dozen of these things in the area to get multiple vantage point of the scene without needing to call in a chopper.
3. Crowd control monitoring. Imagine a post collage football game that spills out onto the streets. Such a device could be linked to a squad car and linked back to dispatch.
4. You know those guys who fly model airplanes or do amature rockets? This appeals to the geek. This would be a cool toy to whip out IF it could be made to respond to BT commands.

In each case there are a few things missing from this implementation.
1. Solid battery life. (They were talking 3 minutes for one of these things. The above suggestions wouldn’t work with that kind of battery life.)
2. Ability to maintain a link at greater distances then current BT specs allow (But keep in mind with the right transmitter such a small receiver should be “good enough”
3. The ability to carry audio and video equipment on it.
4. The software and infrastructure to go with the suggested hardware. So a program that scans a house roof is “smart” enough to see yep that is a crack in your shingling and flags it red on the roofer’s Pocket PC.

However keep in mind this would be only a first generation device. Think 10 years from now.

[Philip Colmer]

In each case there are a few things missing from this implementation.
3. The ability to carry audio and video equipment on it.
According to the report on the BBC News web site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3579232.stm), the helicopter can take and send video.

Now, make it last a bit longer than 3 minutes and it would make a great alternative to hiring a crane or a normal helicopter when you want those overhead shots.

In fact, thinking about it a bit longer, it makes more sense to use pre-programmed instructions. BT doesn't exactly have a fantastic range so it would be better to plot a course, program it in and set it going. Easier to fly that way, as well.

I want! :mrgreen:

--Philip

[Jonathan1]

In fact, thinking about it a bit longer, it makes more sense to use pre-programmed instructions. BT doesn't exactly have a fantastic range so it would be better to plot a course, program it in and set it going. Easier to fly that way, as well.

I want! :mrgreen:

--Philip

Wasn't there something on PPCT about a month ago about someone getting a couple mile transmission with BT? As long as one side of the conversation can send a strong sig and receive a weak one you shouldn't need anything above and beyond BT. Then again if a reporting crew distributes a few dozen of these suckers you wouldn’t want to actually control them. A limited AI in the van should be able to handle navigation with more higher level functionality being handled by the crew in the van. So say Joe sees that cam 5, 16, 18, 21 have a good shots and all are steamed to the new station which is then streamed to the viewer who can view a scene from multiple angles. Then again the news is depressing enough as it is. Do you really want to see a train derailment from 16 different angles. :-\ On a brighter note how about sports? :)
Also keep in mind that isn't the BT 2 specs due sometime next year? And I thought the distance and bandwidth of it was much better then the v1 standards.

[kosmicki]

One question:

WHERE ARE THE PLANS?!

That is all.

[Mr. PPC]

Several thoughts.
1. Espionage use or practical military applications for building surveillance or deployment of bomblets that float to the ground and wait to be activated. Imagine a Galaxy transport dropping these in an urban environment. 50,000 of these things float down to the ground and sit there with a prox sensor. When the “good guys” (I’ll keep it generic for PC purposes.) come in they are all wearing BT transmitters that disable the devices when they get in range. So walking down a street littered with such munitions is hazardous for the “bad guys” but easy for the “good guys”


I can see it now...

A grunts BT transceiver gets damaged (say by a bullet), next thing he knows a swarm of these little guys start coming at him. Because he is with his patrol getting first aid (remember bullet) they all get blown up.

New meaning to Blue on Blue

I see a movie being made about this :-)

On a serious note, this isn't anything new - except Bluetooth part. The DOD has people (for years) trying to create insect size devices for the purposes quoted.

[surur]

Another factor is of course that there has been a lot of miniaturisation effort going on with bluetooth, more so than with other radio-control technologies. This was a simple adaptation of off-the-shelf technology (the bluetooth part) instead of developing a whole new solution.

For this same reason bluetooth keyboards and mice will soon be cheaper than there proprietary radio versions.

Thank god for wide-ranging standards.

Surur

PS: and of course, as others have said, in free line of sight, the range of bluetooth is much better than 33 feet.

[bjornkeizers]

Very cool. I'd definitely buy one of these. Much more geek then that r/c car that SE makes. :D

[GeorgeG]

Why you show us this article anyway;

[mrkablooey]

Why you show us this article anyway;

W?BHC!

[OSUKid7]

In each case there are a few things missing from this implementation.
3. The ability to carry audio and video equipment on it.
According to the report on the BBC News web site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3579232.stm), the helicopter can take and send video.

Now, make it last a bit longer than 3 minutes and it would make a great alternative to hiring a crane or a normal helicopter when you want those overhead shots.Anyone remember on Futurama, the TV cameras are robots? Hmm...wonder if these things could be modified to do something like that. 8)

[jgrnt1]

Bluetooth doesn't just have to be for instructions, whether ahead of time, or during a "mission." Imagine a swarm of these all connected to each other via BT, kind of like parallel computing. Several could be doing video, several others could be doing audio, some could have thermal sensors or chemical weapons sniffers, etc.

They could also be used in a "closed" environment. They could monitor tunnels or parking garages -- put "docking stations" throughout the area and the some of these things could land and recharge themselves while their brothers and sisters continued monitoring.

It sounds Big Brother-ish, and it is. I'm as far to the left as anyone I know -- I don't necessarily like the possibilities, but because of terrorism, it is getting to be part of the world in which we live. A swarm of these could monitor an entire rail line, and might have been able to prevent an incident like the Spanish train bombing.

Much of this type of monitoring can be done with fixed cameras and sensors. In a sensitive area, though, if one of them goes bad or is disabled, we are in a world of hurt. These could automatically cover for each other. They could also be deployed in areas where we didn't have any type of monitoring.

None of this has to be military in nature. In a mining disaster, these might be deployed to help locate trapped miners. In a flood, they could look for stranded people, or be sent into a damaged building to see if it is safe enough for people to enter. A swarm of these could monitor the crowd during a political rally.

[PatrickD]

They are probably trying to go after a U.S. Military contract. Apparently the U.S. military is spending a lot of money researching robot insects and flying machines. Check out this link

http://people.howstuffworks.com/spy-fly.htm

[SeanH]

Another factor is of course that there has been a lot of miniaturisation effort going on with bluetooth, more so than with other radio-control technologies. This was a simple adaptation of off-the-shelf technology (the bluetooth part) instead of developing a whole new solution.

For this same reason bluetooth keyboards and mice will soon be cheaper than there proprietary radio versions.
I am sure this is the reason. Implementing a discrete RF radio is very difficult. It’s really easy to use a very small Bluetooth module from companies like National, ST or Taiyo Yuden. You can put the Bluetooth module in a serial port mode (serial port profile) and send simple commands to the device. Bluetooth Class 2-3 is 10 meters (33 ft) and Bluetooth class 1 is 100 meters (333 ft). Using Bluetooth modules makes it really easy for OEM’s to add Bluetooth to just about any product with very little effort.

This is not the first RC Bluetooth device out. Sony did a mini RC car that works with all there cell phones. You control the car with the little joy stick on your Sony phone.

http://www.techbuy.com.au/product.asp?prodId=36915

Sean

[Brad Adrian]

I still think this is pretty cool proof of concept stuff. I can imagine all kinds of uses for these little buggers.

I'm not sure how quickly this technology will mature. I was surprised the other day when I went to see "I, Robot." It was a great movie, but it was supposed to be set in the year 20034, thirty years in the future. The movie showed that in a mere 30 years, we'll have high-speed, auto-driver cars (that get parked vertically) and robots EVERYwhere. For anyone who can remember 1974, it's a little hard to believe that those things will come to pass so quickly.

My point is that we tend to be a bit too optimistic about the timeframes in which certain technologies will mature. These little flying things are cool, but I'll bet they won't be doing any of the things listed in this thread for at least another 20 years.

[Godsongz]

Wasn't there something on PPCT about a month ago about someone getting a couple mile transmission with BT?...

That was Wi-Fi though, much longer expected range. Here's the link to that thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30697&highlight=mile)

[Jonathan1]

Several thoughts.
1. Espionage use or practical military applications for building surveillance or deployment of bomblets that float to the ground and wait to be activated. Imagine a Galaxy transport dropping these in an urban environment. 50,000 of these things float down to the ground and sit there with a prox sensor. When the “good guys” (I’ll keep it generic for PC purposes.) come in they are all wearing BT transmitters that disable the devices when they get in range. So walking down a street littered with such munitions is hazardous for the “bad guys” but easy for the “good guys”


I can see it now...

A grunts BT transceiver gets damaged (say by a bullet), next thing he knows a swarm of these little guys start coming at him. Because he is with his patrol getting first aid (remember bullet) they all get blown up.



Ahh but keep in mind that typically a soldier is never really alone. Typically he is in a unit or something composed of at least a few people and BT has a range of what 30M? So as long as everyone in his unit isn't down and also it wouldn't be that difficult to put 3 BT units in one box of cards size device so there is redundancy.

[SteveHoward999]

Now, make it last a bit longer than 3 minutes and it would make a great alternative to hiring a crane or a normal helicopter when you want those overhead shots.


Now I am hardly an expert here, and I really hate to be cynical ... but do you think that little thing will be able to cope with a light breeze? What about a steady 10 mph draft?

Somehow I think it would be more use inside buildings than outside. I see it as just too light to be usable in normal outdoor conditions. How about inspecting conduits, roofspaces, crawl spaces, basements, ... anywhere where ladders, crawling, or even dismantling can be avoided for inspection etc.


Anyone lost a hamster recently? :mrgreen:


Steve

Steve

[SteveHoward999]

I was surprised the other day when I went to see "I, Robot." It was a great movie, but it was supposed to be set in the year 20034, thirty years in the future. The movie showed that in a mere 30 years, we'll have high-speed, auto-driver cars (that get parked vertically) and robots EVERYwhere. For anyone who can remember 1974, it's a little hard to believe that those things will come to pass so quickly.


Wasn't that based on Asimov's book? So it was written in the 50's, wasn't it? Anyway ... I look forward to seeing what we really have in 30 years time. I have been working in the multimedia industry for the last 7 years and have seen what would have seemed to be unbelievable advances in such a short time. I tremble with anticipation ...


Steve

[Janak Parekh]

Wasn't that based on Asimov's book? So it was written in the 50's, wasn't it?
The title implied that, but from what I've heard, the movie doesn't come close to resembling the book (I read it, but decided not to see the movie after hearing the screams from Asimov fans). Apparently, the screenplay wasn't originally I, Robot, but Asimov-isms were adopted after most of it was written.

It was a great movie, but it was supposed to be set in the year 20034, thirty years in the future.
Well, if 20034 is thirty years in your future, that would explain it, wouldn't it? :P

--janak

[surur]

I still think this is pretty cool proof of concept stuff. I can imagine all kinds of uses for these little buggers.

I'm not sure how quickly this technology will mature. I was surprised the other day when I went to see "I, Robot." It was a great movie, but it was supposed to be set in the year 20034, thirty years in the future. The movie showed that in a mere 30 years, we'll have high-speed, auto-driver cars (that get parked vertically) and robots EVERYwhere. For anyone who can remember 1974, it's a little hard to believe that those things will come to pass so quickly.

My point is that we tend to be a bit too optimistic about the timeframes in which certain technologies will mature. These little flying things are cool, but I'll bet they won't be doing any of the things listed in this thread for at least another 20 years.

I would be surprised not to have a self-driving car in 20 years. You could have had a self-driving car 10 years ago, the cost was just exhorbitant then.

The thing about tech is not that the power of the devices have increased, but that the cost of a powerfull device has decreased. In 10 years time the cost of a self-driving car would be the same as the cost of a normal car now, and normal cars would be a lot cheaper (and may be legislated of the road due to driver-caused accidents 10 year later).

Asimo type robots will also become cheaper, on the level of the robot dog thing.

Of course the brains are a different story, but, as with walking robots, the range of skills and activities a machine can emulate are likely only to increase. (see also the self-balancing Sedgeway thing)

I give it 20 years actually.

Surur

[kosmicki]

Wasn't there something on PPCT about a month ago about someone getting a couple mile transmission with BT?...

That was Wi-Fi though, much longer expected range. Here's the link to that thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30697&highlight=mile)

No, it was bluetooth. I submitted the news.

Can't seem to find it here though...

[Steven Cedrone]

The thread you are looking for is here... (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30786&start=0)

Steve

[lapchinj]

What I'm having trouble with is the practical application here. The only thing I can think of is that it could be used to airlift very small insects for very short distances...
That's a perfect start for any well thought out and useful W?BIC project.

I've taken your idea one step further and have laid out plans to modify my Lego Brick (MindStorms) to transport that little thingy across the street to see what’s really going on over on the other side 8) . No more chickens for me. The second part of my very useful W?BIC project is to try and get it all back to my side of the street – in one piece. :mrgreen:

Who says that W?BIC projects not useful? Even NASA started out small 8O !

Jeff-