anyone over the pond tell me what series and episode it is please ?
all i can find on the net is its tonights episode but presume thats over in the US
rob
all i can find on the net is its tonights episode but presume thats over in the US
rob
mythbusters can a home drone kill you ?
- Thread starter robsquad
- Start date
Can a home drone kill you? I can answer that: No. A PERSON operating any sort of machinery can purposefully or accidentally kill someone. People kill people, not tools.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
The failicy in this demonstration is seen when it takes 15 seconds from first touching the skin (allowing the blades to NEVER loose momentum) and lightly pushing to make sure they maintain "all horsepower" for every nano second. Of course it is going to cut it - and deep. However, this is not a "real-life" demonstration. Fly it directly into the **** chicken and see what happens. Here is a clue, the torque of these electric motors is very low. This means that if you hold on to the phantom and shoved a whole frickin' chicken into the side (hitting 2 blades, not one), guess what - the blades will stop and you will burn out 2 ESCs. My BET is pain - positively, cuts - for sure; however, I do not believe the person will die, by any stretch. Law suit - yep! If you have no insurance, and nobody does, you are "up **** creek without a paddle". This, in and of itself is my deterrent from flying around a bunch of people - I just do not do it! Mark my words, someone is going to get hurt - very bad and there will be a lawsuit. And, the Phantom Pilot will be in jail (FOR STUPIDITY)! This is just my 2 cents!
Yeah, that test was a little dumb. The quad will not gently stay in one spot with constant feed until it cuts flesh. Now hitting someone in the eye could be bad. I guess I could do a test with a carpet sample and rub it on you till you have a burn. I like their show but disagree with them somestimes. They had made a twin fan backpack and never really finished it and called it busted. There was one with an ultralite plane they had on a long canvas runway they pulled out from under it at takeoff speed to see if it would take off. Had the plane sit in one spot, it would not have. In their video you will see the forward speed of the plane in relation to the ground and it finally took off. That was just stupid.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 23
This video is in response to the news story where the police found a dead body, with a decapitated head and a drone beside it.
I say horsehockey because the motors would shut down from the extra torque applied to them.
From personal experience though, the blades WILL do some damage to your skin, but not lethal.
The mythdorks merely showed the blades as a cheap chain saw. But wouldn't hold up if they used the actual craft.
I say horsehockey because the motors would shut down from the extra torque applied to them.
From personal experience though, the blades WILL do some damage to your skin, but not lethal.
The mythdorks merely showed the blades as a cheap chain saw. But wouldn't hold up if they used the actual craft.
I would tend to agree.
The amount of sheer force required to severe a head from the body doesn't incorporate simply soft tissue. There is a relatively hard target called the Spinal Column to consider. The craft would have to be in excess of, I believe, 12lbs and traveling over 30kph with carbon fiber props to get a decapitation wound. Sheer assumption on my part though.
I was left wondering just whom the person would be that would stand still and allow such force to be applied. However, I also know that sheer kinetic energy from a forward flying aircraft, should it hit the jugular, could cause a death inducing wound if no immediate emergency assistance was available.
That type of wound would be especially grievous no matter what method used to induce it. Also, it would require a particular skill set not common to most operators. A "lucky" shot more than anything.
Sure, it COULD happen. I just do not think it would be typical of the regular pilot. Not many of us INTEND to fly our craft into a soft target. Much less a hardened one.
As some of you may have guessed, I wrote a scathing email to Discover Channel about this remarkable unscientific, unreal and useless waste of an opportunity.
No response, of course.
Part of the letter reads, 'Sure, if you are stupid enough to stand still while a drone propeller takes small cuts from your neck, it can do real damage. So could a spoon at 15,000 RPM. What the hell is the point of this absurd "test"?'
I also challenged them to doing real-world tests of possible events such as dropping a drone on a crash dummy, or flying a drone into a test dummy. But there is nothing even remotely real about cutting open a stationary chicken carcass with a CF prop from a drone.
The Discover Channel really lost a lot of viewers when they let the real scientists and engineers leave. All that's left is a tinker and a stuntman. Mythdorks - I like the new name for them.
No response, of course.
Part of the letter reads, 'Sure, if you are stupid enough to stand still while a drone propeller takes small cuts from your neck, it can do real damage. So could a spoon at 15,000 RPM. What the hell is the point of this absurd "test"?'
I also challenged them to doing real-world tests of possible events such as dropping a drone on a crash dummy, or flying a drone into a test dummy. But there is nothing even remotely real about cutting open a stationary chicken carcass with a CF prop from a drone.
The Discover Channel really lost a lot of viewers when they let the real scientists and engineers leave. All that's left is a tinker and a stuntman. Mythdorks - I like the new name for them.
Last edited:
If you might be referring to Kari Byron I'd totally agree but for different reasons.
LMAO..
BOT
Last edited:
The safety glasses are a nice touch. I missed that one apparently.
a motorized toothbrush can cut through skin as well... if given enough time. That show has been moronic since season 2.
Remember when they actually did three 'experiments' serially rather than side by side for the half hour? once they changed to that format you'd have to watch all the buildup BS.
Remember when they actually did three 'experiments' serially rather than side by side for the half hour? once they changed to that format you'd have to watch all the buildup BS.
oh my...thanks!If you might be referring to Kari Byron I'd totally agree but for different reasons.
LMAO..
BOT
Similar threads
