I have a Foxtech V3. It's one of the smallest 1080P cameras on the market. It does amazingly well for it size. It's limited to only 30FPS at 1080P, but if you don't pan too quickly and ensure there's plenty of light, it compares well to the GoPro3 White Addition.

However, one of its 'issues', it being so small, is it's incredibly sensitive to higher mechanical vibrations. And as we all know, higher mechanical vibration translates to the notorious "jello effect".

I have a rather gangly and large wood quad, and have had issues with jello with my V3 for quite a while now. I've gone the whole route, prop balancing, bell balancing, foam, bubble wrap, and several other that didn't work quite as well.

I have also been experimenting with a downward looking mirror during FPV.



And although the mirror would work in theory, I found it to be incredibly difficult to use in practice since everything is opposite to what I'm seeing as my 'main view'.

Moving on. . . I've since removed the mirror, giving in to the conclusion I simply couldn't master the concept. Once removed, the occasional jello returned. It was odd how much reduced the jello seemed with the mirror attached. This was strange, and I didn't make the connection for a week or so, but later I happened to recall an entomology course I had taken at university several years ago. Many flying insects have counterbalancing structures called halteres They are knob-like protuberances on stalks to help counterbalance and stabilize the wings in flight, not totally unlike a heli flybar.



I have since attached two skewers with small nuts on the end, and attached them to the floating enclosure I have for the V3. After several flights I have "tuned" (length of skewer, position, size of small nut, etc) my configuration for the 'sweetspot' of maximum vibration absorbtion and now have virtually no jello.



In conclusion, if anyone is having trouble ridding their multirotor of the last jiggles of jello, I would invite them to try it.

In the antique signguy tricopter thread you will see the most effective such solution: place battery and camera on a plate, and mount the plate to the copter using silicone tubes.
Turned today into the fancy rubber balls solution, but same principle: a heavy mass for dumping and the most flexible contact you can find with the rest of frame you can find, even magnetic levitation if you can .

Yes, I'm aware of using a large available mass as a dampening medium. Even mentioned it myself in detail a few weeks ago.

I still need to refine my idea, but I think halteres stalks might be a viable alternate to 'tune-out' any higher mechanical frequencies that find their way across an isolation barrier.

But please consider, this is for extremely small cameras. Cameras or devices of any 'relatively considerable' mass, would require the mass on the stalk to be much too inconvenient and large. Mass the likes of a GoPro and similar are too large for this technique to be convenient.

Exactly for this reason they are placed on same plate with battery.
Me to I have an even lighter one, the Boscam HD09 (foxtech horyzon hd), the optic head is some grams connected to the recorder by flexible cable, the complete board and recorder is 35 grams.

For such small stuff thinking about a magnetic field levitation solution ...

That is a very cool idea. I may indeed look into that. And you're using basically the same cam I'm using. Only thing is, the suspension field probably needs to be a good distance ~>5cm from the camera to minimize interference. And it sounds somewhat heavy using even neodymium magnets . Maybe not, you really only need ~1mm of gap. . . the vibration is only moving the device a couple tenths of a mm.

But that's certainly easy enough to check before building anything.

Maglev would be sweet for the camera, but would be a nightmare if you are using one of the controllers that use a magnetic compass!

Rob D.

The halteres provide a large moment of inertia that's more effective than localized heavy masses such as a battery.

Originally Posted by djacob7

The halteres provide a large moment of inertia that's more effective than localized heavy masses such as a battery.

Yes, but again, there are several variables that are critical to optimizing the stabilization and going to the effort. Placement, stalk length, orientation, rigiity of stalk, halteres mass . . . are all much more critical than simply coupling the camera to an isolated available large mass (battery).

And it is only advantageous to a smaller camera, since you are adding mass to the overall system, and generally larger cameras don't 'see' those higher vibrations. And to tune-out higher mechanical vibrations on a large camera reduces flight time as I would assume a camera such as a gopro or large would require halteres mass of a 10-15 grams per axis. And I have found a minimum of two axis (2 stalks) are most beneficial.

With the growing number of fair to good quality video from sub-50 gram cameras such as the new 808#26 or the upcoming Foxtech V4, I would like to figure out a rule-of-thumb configuration to share. Once 1080P@60FPS becomes the norm for these ultra mini cameras, I believe the higher mechanical vibrations will aggravate the user to such an extent that an alternate solution will be greatly appreciated.

I've found an analogous application for the halteres stalk, albeit at a much higher amplitude and much lower frequency.

I think the stabilizers on a bow are probably closer to these in their way of operation: http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/c...ers/damper.asp
They also add mass some distance away from the CG, increasing the total inertia in the pitch plane, which helps preventing unwanted deviation when the arrow is shot. The halteres act more like a gyroscopic device, they both provide gyroscopic dampening and feedback to the insect, that then uses the feedback to correct the maneuvers. They are not fixed and allowed to vibrate, but they are powered by the same mechanism that power the wings.

Originally Posted by Brandano

I think the stabilizers on a bow are probably closer to these in their way of operation: http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/c...ers/damper.asp
They also add mass some distance away from the CG, increasing the total inertia in the pitch plane, which helps preventing unwanted deviation when the arrow is shot. The halteres act more like a gyroscopic device, they both provide gyroscopic dampening and feedback to the insect, that then uses the feedback to correct the maneuvers. They are not fixed and allowed to vibrate, but they are powered by the same mechanism that power the wings.

You are correct on all accounts. And a bow stabilizer and the Fargo cable dampener can be loosely analogous to a halteres, but in a passive capacity. I have no doubt after reading a wonderful dissertation by Rhoe Thompson, the halteres serves several functions. But, instead of actively providing a gyroscopic stabilization and corrective feedback through precession and coriolis strain on the stalk nerve cluster at the base, the dampener is tuned to the frequency of aggravation for nullification.

That doctoral thesis provides extreme detail in the function of the halteres on all fronts. . .the physics, the physiology, the aerodynamic stabilization, etc. Because I am concerned with very low amplitude, but very high frequency vibrations, I think a general rule or configuration for a stabilization post or stalk on the order of a few grams can be found for these ultra small cameras.

If nothing else, I suggest reading through the thesis for the extreme analysis of this miracle of nature.

One thing you could try is to attach a few spinning masses to the camera and support it with a flexible mount. It will still vibrate, but as long as the vibration is only translational you shouldn't notice it in the video, because an image and the same image taken at 0.5 mm distance are pretty much identical.

That is an idea! But the whole purpose of using an ultra small camera is to reduce weight. I can't visualize a method to gyroscopically stabilize and not have the system become at least as heavy (probably heavier) as a GoPro or similar.

Renatoa's idea of using very small neodymium magnets for suspension is intriguing, but I can't visualize a method where the camera can be completely suspended. . or where it can be suspended but be somewhat secure with an attachment at some point or axis. And I have found high frequency vibrations, IF they are indeed present, will find their way across virtually any medium. It's almost like you're trying to isolate vibrations not much larger than sound.

Again, this is hardly noticeable with 720P, but 1080P's resolution is so crisp, the camera is SO light, it's easy to notice even the slightest resonance.

The problem is angular displacement, rather than linear. If you could support the camera assembly exactly from the CG it should be less noticeable.

Yes, I wish I had better instrumentation so I could map the dead or neutral nodes on my quad and work from there. All I have is a vibration app on my Galaxy S2 and . . .well. . .probably the best vibration indicator I could ask for. . . the camera.

But, oh my, that would take a while to map the whole quad during flight, up and down, up and down. Because I have no doubt the map would change resting on the ground vs actual flight.

By the way, if anyone is interested, that is also a great way to balance motors. Attach a webcam to your boom (disconnect all other motors) and keep moving your tape or nylon tie, or whatever is used on the bell until you have the least jello or shaky image as you run the throttle up and down. No need to do so with props. A prop balancer works fine.