Intelligent Energy Share Discussion Threads

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 16:31

"DARPA’s Squad X program, among others, is working on a number of ideas right now to increase human and machine collaboration at the lowest tactical level, including ground robots, small micro-drones, and trying to figure out how to push the squad situational awareness and lethality out to a large, large battlespace area." from the post before last!

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 16:29

If IEH are involved in powering any of the above, they're hardly going to release an RNS about it .... it almost makes you wonder if the income to companies working on this kind of stuff would even appear in the accounts .... it would need explaining away ....

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 16:20

Not cheerful reading but this is the trend that has been gathering for years. All this tech needs POWER ..... no different to you or I wanting a mobile that does more and needs charging less often .... even broke countries have found teh money to maintain a military advantage. For defence, certainly in the US, where IEH has a decent presence, there are huge defence budgets sloshing around .... I didn't actually find what I was looking for when googling "pentagon""non-human" but this is more up to date and will do ....

"The Terminator Doctrine:

The most evolutionary form of the Third Offset Strategy is the creation of hybrid man-machine soldiers and the seamless combat integration between man and machine. Work recalls an anecdote in attempting to justify this disturbing post-modern leap:

“Tyler Cowen wrote a book called “Average is Over.” He’s an avid chess player. What he said was, “It used to be a matter of faith that a machine would never beat a human,” because a machine would not have the intuitive cognition. You know, it just wouldn’t be able to have the intuitive spark to think through an interactive dual like chess. That proved to be wrong. Now machines consistently beat grandmasters. And what he found out in a thing called three-play chess is the combination of a man and a machine always beats the machine and always beats the man.”

"He then continues by prophesizing that:

“I believe that what the Third Offset Strategy will revolve around will be three-play combat in each dimension. And three-play combat will be much different in each dimension, and it will be up for the people who live and fight in that dimension to figure out the rules. We will have autonomy at rest, our smart systems, being able to go through big data to help at the campaign level and to be able to go through big data at the tactical level. So autonomy at rest and autonomy in motion.”

Before leaving office, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel got a look at high-tech projects being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

What he’s saying here is that man-machine hybrids, perhaps created via the augmentation implants that were forecasted by the Directorate of National Intelligence’s Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds report from 2012, will be capable of besting any ‘purebred̵7; man or machine offensive or defensive unit in one-on-one competition, even indirectly via the cyber and electronic realms. He also suggests that forward-operating assault squads in the future will be “disaggregated” into smaller, more fluid formations that would require “overmatch by providing support in fires, intelligence and logistics”, something which man-machine collaboration can solve. He goes on to propose that:

“If we combine them (the squad) into well-trained, cohesive combat teams with new advances in robotics and autonomy and unmanned systems, three-play combat at the squad level, we can create super-empowered squads, super-empowered small units with enhanced situational awareness and lethality. DARPA’s Squad X program, among others, is working on a number of ideas right now to increase human and machine collaboration at the lowest tactical level, including ground robots, small micro-drones, and trying to figure out how to push the squad situational awareness and lethality out to a large, large battlespace area.”

He predicts that “much of this technology is going to come from the commercial sector”, and also lists some of the examples currently in development:

“This is not as far away as you might think. The Army is — right now is kind of leading the way in manned and unmanned teaming with the Apache in the shadows, which is going on in the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative, which we think is exciting and kind of a leading indicator of where we need to go. Automated driving seemed like the work of fiction not long ago, but there’s a race going on between big-tech companies and some of the larger auto makers who are looking to develop self-driving cars. So, in the not-too-distant future, squads are going to operate with robotic support, sapper robots, counter-mine robots, counter-sniper robots.”

The autonomous robot support units take on a heightened raid-breaking significance when one considers Work’s earlier prognosis that:

“We’re not too far away from a sensor-fused weapon, and instead of going after tanks, we’ll go after the biometric signature of human beings.”

This should be interpreted as meaning that one of the weapon classes of the future will directly target human beings inside of their protective structures (be they tanks, planes, buildings, etc.), inferring that the only guaranteed defense against such an armament would be the deployment of non-human autonomous units that would destroy these weapons prior to actual human or hybrid introduction to the field.


Altogether, everything that Work has described vis-à-vis robotic warfare systems amounts to a clear “Terminator Doctrine” in rolling out hybrid man-machine soldiers and autonomous robot support units, perhaps even in the form of Paladin anti-missile electromagnetic rail gun tanks that would provide the necessary cover for the aforementioned blitzkrieg force (be it man, man-machine hybrid, or purely autonomous). Robotic and man-machine hybrid warfare is evidently what the US is planning to develop in order to win Air Land Battle 2.0 and guaranteeing the success of the Third Offset Strategy against Russia, China, and Iran.

Concluding Thoughts

Robert Wolf’s announcement of the Third Offset Strategy and his detailed description of the trajectory that the US plans to take in actualizing it present the greatest declaration of strategic destabilization in modern history. The US is essentially proclaiming its intent to acquire the full-spectrum technology to initiate a first strike against the Eurasian Great Powers of Russia, China, and Iran, which in turn will likely spur them to partake in their own Third Offset buildup to create breakthrough defensive means in safeguarding against this impending vulnerability. If they’re not able to achieve this, then the US will more than likely place each of them in a position of military blackmail in dictating its geopolitical and economic demands, which would of course mitigate the global movement towards multipolarity.

Out of the three Resistant & Defiant states mentioned, the US may most likely attempt to use this technology against Iran first as a means of perfecting it prior to utilization against the others. This is because Tehran currently doesn’t have the nuclear deterrent necessary to make the US second-guess using the country as a testing ground, nor does it have as much of a relative ability as Russia or China in escalating any potential crisis to the level of brinksmanship that may be needed to make the US back down (e.g. the nuclear triad and potentially space-based weapon deployments). It should be clear at this point that the US is dedicated to militarily institutionalizing its unipolar hegemony for the indefinite future (the real “velocity of instability”), and that the Eurasian Great Powers must take similar technological measures in defending against the Third Offset Strategy and/or succeed in pulling off a major asymmetrical counter-move such as de-dollarization that would ‘offset’ the US’ grand strategy before it’s too late."

[filster] 25/11/2016 16:17

Nope, they need to stick to their core market. Sell the HFCs to someone who knows how to sell Drones and is recognised as a Drone 'go to' company. The last thing they want to do is buy a load of Drones, kit them out and have them sitting in Loughborough.

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 16:05

Ibug, it makes you wonder how much IEH could sell the drones for? Instead of equipping other peoples' drones, they sell their own HFC powered versions with their own cartridges of gas bottles / supplies. If I was IEH, I'd buy the drones in from MMC made to my spec, add the fuel cells and retail them direct with the rest of the kit needed at at a big profit. Compared to paying thousands of dollars for the batteries needed to achieve hours in the air and the inconvenience of having to return to base to change them every 20 minutes, some people would pay a lot fo 4 hours uninterrupted drone up time .... especially the military .... drone plus HFC plus IR sensor quietly working out which houses or vehicles or trenches etc. were occupied and by how many people?

I bet the military are all over this like a rash and if it serves a purpose, they'll find the money for it ... and if drones can do work that used to be done by soldiers, all the better ... I remember a note from The Pentagon years ago saying that by about now, they wanted 25% of all their "manpower" to be "non-human". All that non-human manpower will need powering somehow.

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 15:57

ha ha ha Filster ... I ended up at the alibaba web site as well! Didn't learn much there. I wonder what the income stream to IEH will be since drones running on HFCs will still need replacement HFCs as the membranes become exhausted? It' still more cost effective than running them on batteries. The drone market is somewhere HFCs can be deployed at a real price premium. They're actually cheaper than batteries and run longer. That means there is a lot of money to be made out of this market. I've seen quotes that battery powered drones used commercially for filming etc. generally have about 2 or 3 grands' worth of batteries charged and ready to use ... so the drone goes up, does 20 mins filming, returns to base, changes battery, does more work etc.. Charging batteries in the field seems a waste of time since the drones go through them at such a rate .... so .... I imagine whovere is first yoe market with this will do fine. MMC seem to be claiming to be first to market but can you get one? No prices can be found for them ... interesting stuff ... but the potential profit margins are quite outrageous ... in the early days ... it won't last but ... make hay whilst the sun shines ...

[ibug] 25/11/2016 14:30

MMC advertise they can make a drone using any frame design....so did IEH use them to make the prototypes?. That is certainly a real possibility imo.

[filster] 25/11/2016 14:24

I guess it depends on our definition of working and their definition!

[ibug] 25/11/2016 14:21

This link shows all the configurations of the Hydrone 1800 series.

[ibug] 25/11/2016 14:11

The Hydrone 1800 is advertised on Alibaba...but it requires joining.



The Alibaba mini web site for MMc is worth a visit---such a wide variety of H2 Drones.

[ibug] 25/11/2016 13:05

Thanks Dean --- THAT ARTICLE FEATURING AN ieh DRONE WAS DATED RECENTLY--September 20th and it is impressive.

[filster] 25/11/2016 11:49

Sorry, no I meant that the preferred choice of gas bottle is just a standard off the shelf product - think along the lines of the bottles used to power paintball guns for instance. The rest of the product is then split between the Drone manufacturer and then whoever produces the HFC. Therefore there will be an inherent similarity when looking at the fuel tank as they are the same item, if people are looking for differences they need to look elsewhere.

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 11:39

Filster, yes. Some of this stuff could be done by a keen hobbyist and much kit will be available from specialist sellers. I presume IEH do these projects to encourage the use of IEH's IP in other peoples' products and IEH can obviously do some clever stuff .... otherwise clever companies with their own R&D departments wouldn't hire IEH to help them in this particular area of expertise

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 11:26

Correcting mistakes, I meant WTO rules on observing patents.

I have now identified three different IEH HFC powered drones.

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 11:15

Let's look at the time frame.

IEH customise a DJI drone running it on hydrogen and show it off round the world.

January 2016. Announcement that major drone manufacturer has "snapped up" IEH for co-operation making HFC drones.

April 2016. MMC announce "world's first" HFC powered drone.

Is from january 2016 to April 2016 enough time to produce an HFC powered drone for MMC? I reckon so if they already had a new model ready to release that could be adapted by IEH ... but that doesn't mean it's MMC IEH are working with.

Announcements in March 2016 claimed drones would be on sale possibly within the year .... so we can assume that an announcement on at least one drone deal is due within 4 months ...

Having said that ... I notice I can find only reference to a letter of intent ... who knows where it went after that ... though I also noticed that the RNS from September last year was about the EXTENSION of an EXISTING agreement with an Asian car manufacturer ...... so it seems IEH ARE delivering value to their Asian partners in the zero emissions auto business ... otherwise they wouldn't be having deals renewed ... the question is, what is the value of the income from IEH tech licensed into Asian zero emission vehicles and how many vehicles are just going to buy auto HFCs built by SMILE / Suzuki?

Next year, revenue should have grown yet more and the one off 51 million quid expense won't be in the accounts ....

[filster] 25/11/2016 11:15

To be fair the tanks are probably the same - they are off the shelf products (afaik)

[dean windass] 25/11/2016 10:52

To recap, IEH initially modified a DJI Matrice 100 drone .... now it seems the drone in the pic above bearing the IE logo is apparently very similar to an MMC drone released recently.

I must repeat that I can see IEH patents being sold to companies and, post Brexit, with there still being news of takeovers with sterling still low, a takeover of IEH ... enforcing patents might be difficult but eventually, there will be cases where CHINESE companies buy patents and enforce their claims in CHINESE courts versus CHINESE rivals. If DTI or MMC OWNED patents to technology used in BOTH their drones, whoever owned the patent would, in theory, be able to demand, in CHINESE courts, damages or licensing fees from competitors or drive themout of business. This is what I meant when I suggested there was potentially VAST value in IEH's patents. Everything is worth what you can get for it. Can you imagine a bidding war between DJI and MMC for the intellectual property used in BOTH their HFC powered drones? ... for just ONE IEH patent????? ...I am very relaxed about the state of IEH ... yes, I should have been less lazy, seen the fall in the SP, sold at a loss but bought in lower but I HAVE averaged down quite a bit and, in my posts done last night, there ARE sectors of the HFC market that will be profitable regardless of the oil price. Some bits of IEHs work is affected by low oil prices, no doubt about it but even if oil was FREE, that wouldn't affect the fact that Hydrogen is much lighter than Oxygen and Hydrogen Fuel Cells are much, much lighter than batteries ..... and more efficient as far as drones are concerned ... also, the amount of money a firm can save by not licensing IP owned by a patent holder is tiny compared to the legal fees and implications of losing a case for patent infringement. This stuff may be MADE in China but anything sold in The West has to comply with all WTA laws etc.. It's a false economy trying to avoid paying patent licenses.

[filster] 24/11/2016 20:32

On the videos it just looks like the Fuel Cell itself has been moved from being on top, to below and the Hydrogen tank moved vice versa. I guess it's all about weight distribution and maybe the earlier video was more a PoC brought quickly to show the possibility.

[dean windass] 24/11/2016 18:03

May be end of March before IEH's drone is available. I suppose there were negotiations, technical issues, deals need to be agreed and signed, manufacturing and design issues before production can begin plus packaging, distribution, marketing. If I remember rightly, IEH were paid for their non-exclusive help in the JV ... IEH's drone is a modified DJI Matrice 100 .... DJI are one of if not THE biggest drone manufacturer of consumer drones ... but this



Looks different to the one in the BBC Click video. HFCs look different too. Smaller. have IEH reduced them further is size?

Click video is here

[ibug] 24/11/2016 17:37

MMC have some very interesting strategies and HFC drones.

[dean windass] 24/11/2016 17:23

Interestingly enough, it seems that Li-Po batteries last up to 100 hrs in drones, HFCs last 1000 hours .... so I presume there will be a need for replacement HFCs creating an income stream for whoever is making the HFCs. So an MMC HFC powered drone will make 500 x 2 hour flights then need a new HFC .... well, if the drone's delivering drugs or blood or kidneys etc. .... or burritos .... in the air for 12 hours a day ... that's a new HFC every 3 months of its life or so.

I presume the system will be the coordinates of the sites will be pre-programmed into the drone. All sites will have H2 available. A drone will make a trip of up to 2 hours. Land, have the cargo removed and either another cargo will be loaded or the drone will simply be refuelled for its next trip and sent on its way.

hxxp://en.mmcuav.com/ProductsSt/196.html ... the hydrogen bottle looks like IEHs but the HFCs don't like the miniaturised ones on IEHs drone .... IEH reckoned they would have models available by around now.