Slashdot Mirror
Highest Human Elevation Using a Rocketbelt
Chris Gondek writes "Rocketman Eric Scott shot 46 metres into the air in London and promptly claimed a world record. Scott, 41, from Dallas, Texas, donned his red and white jumpsuit and zoomed into the north London sky in his bid to achieve the highest human elevation using a Rocketbelt. His feat, which saw him reach the equivalent height of a 12-storey building, lasted just 26 seconds but allowed enough time for a couple of pirouettes. The Rocketbelt was devised by the United States military in 1961 but has since been used for performances and displays around the world, including the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles."
Air pressure is probably too low @ that elevation. Wanker.
http://www.local6.com/news/3022956/detail.html isn't slashdotted... yet...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Also seen in a James Bond film, I forget which one. Googling "James Bond rocket pack" seems to indicate Thunderball.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Actually, he ascended beside a tower, and landed on its roof, so presumably he didnt even have enough fuel to land again safely at the same level he took off from. He walked back down the staircase of the tower...
Did anyone else notice that he is sponsored by Smirnoff Vodka? This is not a coincidence:P
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
article about one rocket belt company.
He'd have to be higher for a parachute to help..
The peroxide you buy at the drugstore is 3% peroxide - if you pour that over silver you will get pretty much the same thing as you get by pouring it over a wound - some warm foam.
I suppose you could make a "rocket" by putting peroxide in a 2 liter bottle, thowing some silver (or bleach) in, and corking it.
But you would get the same result from baking soda and vinegar.
www.eFax.com are spammers
That's not necessarily true. If he were freefalling downwards then whatever altitude he reached would be too late to deploy a chute to slow him down enough and stop him. But, if he deploys his chute at the top of the burn (assuming it unfurls very quickly), then his vertical speed would be near 0 upon deployment and the parachute would behave much like he had been dropping and had deployed it earlier.
It would only be too low if by the time the chute completely unfurled he was heading downwards too fast (since it's not feasible to deploy the chute and let it unfurl and he's still travelling upwards.)
Adding fuel also increases the exhaust temperature, and if you're already in danger of cooking your legs with superheated steam this could be a problem. The system might require modifications to keep the pilot cool.
Propellants containing N2O4 or N2H4 are right out; you'd presumably like to survive an impact which bends the plumbing, assuming that you live long enough to get the thing fuelled up and launched in the first place. Both substances are extremely poisonous.
To really get long flight times you have to increase the performance well above what rocket propulsion can give you. You can go from rocket to venturi-assisted rocket, to rocket-driven turbofan, to straight turbofan, to helicopter. Each one represents an increase in lift*time per unit fuel, by moving more mass (in this case, air) at a lower velocity and thus decreasing the energy (proportional to v^2) per unit momentum (proportional to v). However, by the time you do this you're not really a "rocket man" any more, you're something else.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I remember when I was in middle school or around there, the guy who was flying these at the time gave us a talk about them (not the same guy they talk about in that article). It was some rediculous 6 or 7 figure cost of fuel for the ~30 second flights they can take with those...while cool, probably the biggest waste of money I can imagine.
Street legal flying cars:
http://www.moller.com/
"Reuters Television" has the video of the flight and preparations.