Dutch Artist Admits Faking Viral 'Human Bird Wing' Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dutch Artist Admits Faking Viral 'Human Bird Wing' Video

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 22, 2012 @10:50AM from the hey-that's-just-like-my-911-call dept.

Velcroman1 writes "Dutch filmmaker and animator Floris Kaayk in collaboration with media production company Revolver fessed up to creating a 'media art project' that took the world by storm in recent days — a video of inventor Jarno Smeets taking flight by flapping his arms. But like the wax melting from Icarus' wings, the truth is finally emerging. Kaayak admitted that he didn't expect the media attention his project would generate, with over 8.9 million views across the world. He made the project in collaboration with Revolver and Omroep NTL, sources in the Netherlands who have spoken to the filmmaker said prior to the show. They admitted their hoax Thursday evening on the Dutch television show Wereld Draait Door."

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not Surprising. by biohazard35 · 2012-03-22 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Honestly, people have been trying to use bird wings to fly for hundreds of years. There wasn't really much chance of this being real considering that every design that used human flight via wings (excluding gliders of course) have failed.
1. Re: Not Surprising. by Dyinobal · 2012-03-22 11:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Ya I'm surpised anyone fell for this at all. Anyone who even knows a tiny tiny bit about anatomy of either humans or birds knows we just don't have the muscles for anything like that.
2. Re: Not Surprising. by Kufat · 2012-03-22 11:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  To be fair, the troll who made the videos did claim that motors were providing 95% of the net power. That made it a good bit more plausible.
3. Re: Not Surprising. by Maddog+Batty · 2012-03-22 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  The wings were driven by electrical powered motors controlled via Wii remotes. Movement of the guys arms made the wings move the same way. So not human powered at all.
  (Ok, ok, CGI electric motors)
  
  --
  wot no sig
4. Re: Not Surprising. by Culture20 · 2012-03-22 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't seen it, but I heard he uses hydraulics to enhance his muscle strength (of course they would add to the weight).
5. Re: Not Surprising. by Dyinobal · 2012-03-22 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  Ah well I guess that would get a few more people to think it was real, but even so from the short bit I watched I didn't see anything for power.
6. Re: Not Surprising. by interval1066 · 2012-03-22 11:18 · Score: 2
  
  I did see the video, and its difficult to understand how the hydrolics worked at all. There was nothing connected to the guy's arms other than some thin wires. Literally nothing, at least from what I saw.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
7. Re: Not Surprising. by durrr · 2012-03-22 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  From the short bit i watched it looked like terrible CG and just felt wrong.
8. Re: Not Surprising. by scottrocket · 2012-03-22 11:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To be fair, the troll who made the videos did claim that motors were providing 95% of the net power. That made it a good bit more plausible.
  And visually - without deep inspection - it looked like a pretty good fake! Why wasn't this story on /.? :)
9. Re: Not Surprising. by gl4ss · 2012-03-22 11:24 · Score: 2
  
  supposedly the connection was gyros and data(someone said wiimotes).
  doesn't matter, even if the wings were ran by automatic code it wouldn't sound credible.. (in fact, you'd think he'd test it that way if it were real anyways)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re: Not Surprising. by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-22 11:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  muscles have nothing to do with it. all wings considered equal, the only thing stopping them from helping us fly is our lack of hollow bones.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
11. Re: Not Surprising. by wanzeo · 2012-03-22 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to see a design that leverages our huge legs instead of our tiny little t-rex arms. It would be a hell of a workout, and it probably wouldn't work, but it's worth a shot.
12. Re: Not Surprising. by anchelo123456789 · 2012-03-22 12:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Has already been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus Much more impressive in my eyes as it did really work. And of course they crashed jus like Daedalus. I would love to have the opportunity to fly this thing just once in my life.
13. Re: Not Surprising. by MrEricSir · 2012-03-22 12:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The part about the Wii remotes was a major red flag. Most people are very bad at lying, and this guy committed the newbie mistake of adding in to many extraneous details to the story.
  Besides, who would build a giant flying machine for thousands of dollars and base the electronics around a $20 IR camera known for rapidly draining batteries? Doesn't seem practical or safe.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
14. Re: Not Surprising. by ColdWetDog · 2012-03-22 12:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Uncanny valley sort of thing. I agree with the ILM folks (hey, isn't that a smart thing to do?) - the wings and wing motion were just not fluid enough. Also lousy focus and jerky motions are easy things to do to hide GCI bits.
  Avatar it's not.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re: Not Surprising. by PPH · 2012-03-22 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  As others have pointed out: Its been done. Successfully. The key is to lose the flapping wings (rigid wings are much lighter for the same lift) and use a propeller (mechanically much simpler).
  On a slightly off-topic rant: Why are (practically) all the emergency boat bilge pumps hand operated? I could keep a leaky boat afloat for much longer peddling a pump. And keep my hands free to run the radio to call for help.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
16. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  There is no failure in flight since gliders exist.
  I don't believe it to be impossible to take the next step.
  It will happen, but right now far too many people simply dismiss the possibility.
  There really is no good reason we can not create something to accomplish this.
  The human body may have certain limits, but not the width of the wings or type of material we use to fly.
  A bird may have the ability to grow into its ability to fly, but we can grow an idea to reach the same goal.
  Biology limits the birds, technology limits us.
  Technology has never had a permanent limit.
17. Re: Not Surprising. by Jherico · 2012-03-22 13:00 · Score: 2
  
  Because foot powered pumps wouldn't be wheelchair accessible. Duh!
  
  --
  Jherico
  What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
18. Re: Not Surprising. by Isaac-Lew · 2012-03-22 13:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Icarus crashed, not Daedalus.
19. Re: Not Surprising. by anubi · 2012-03-22 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  we just don't have the muscles for anything like that
  You just struck a chord with me. I was just munching on a chicken breast.
  
  A good handful of meat.
  
  More than I have in my pec.
  
  And that's just what it takes to power a chicken!
  
  Food for thought. ( Ohhh bad pun, baaaad pun)
  
  But honestly, if more of us had a good feel for the physics around us, we wouldn't be fooled nearly so easy by pranksters saying their kid's aloft in a balloon ( which obviously does not have sufficient volume to displace enough air to hoist a 40 pound kid! ), or inventors claiming devices producing enormous amounts of energy from a small "investment".
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
20. Re: Not Surprising. by artor3 · 2012-03-22 13:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's the typical Slashdot delay. I'm sure the original story will pop up in a week or two, followed by a couple dupes.
21. Re: Not Surprising. by the_other_chewey · 2012-03-22 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  I could keep a leaky boat afloat for much longer peddling a pump.
  What if nobody buys it?
22. Re: Not Surprising. by countach · 2012-03-22 15:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Sometimes common electronics lying around are better than some custom job. I mean, why do airlines use $500 ipads for flight maps to control a $500 million dollar aircraft? And why would you need long battery life? Flight only lasted a few seconds.
23. Re: Not Surprising. by houghi · 2012-03-22 19:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Avatar it's not.
  So it was very realistic with great acting and no obvious view of CGI and even an original storyline?
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
24. Re: Not Surprising. by Joce640k · 2012-03-22 20:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The obvious fail was that the fabric in the wings wasn't even tense, it was looser than the aforementioned vagina. There's no way it was being used as a wing.
  
  --
  No sig today...
25. Re: Not Surprising. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-22 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Which airline has flights which last only a few seconds? And is it because they reach their destination that fast, or because they can't keep their 500 million square dollar aircrafts from crashing immediately?
  SCNR
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
26. Re: Not Surprising. by findoutmoretoday · 2012-03-22 21:24 · Score: 2
  
  Even before flying, the obvious fail was that the pilot was not tense. He was going to risk his life with a poorly tested prototype the next minute.
27. Re: Not Surprising. by Peter+Simpson · 2012-03-22 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  ...until you looked at his drawings of the motors and the gear train. I'm an EE, not an ME, and even I had a feeling that what he had wasn't going to be able to lift a man. His sole connection to the "wing" was at one end of the mast he used as the main spar. No way, I thought, is any motor able to drive that without breaking it off.
28. Re: Not Surprising. by BeardedChimp · 2012-03-22 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Icarus crashed, not Daedalus.
  
  During flight testing, Daedalus 87 was damaged in a crash caused by spiral divergence
  
  The flight ended in the water (7 meters from Perissa Beach on Santorini, according to the official record), when increasing gusty winds caused a torsional failure of the tail boom. Lacking control, the airplane then pitched nose-up, and another gust caused a failure of the main wing spar. The pilot swam to shore.
  Much of the wreckage of Daedalus 88 is in storage at the Smithsonian's restoration facility.
  Seems they both did.
29. Re: Not Surprising. by d3ac0n · 2012-03-22 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the use of the wii-mote motion sensors for flight related utility is not at all uncommon. Although for flying PEOPLE it is uncommon, to be sure.
  The most common current use is to use the wii "nunchuck" wired into a standard rc tx unit to allow fluid motion control of an rc plane or mutli-rotor heli. These received wide acceptance in the FPV RC community as they provide a very "natural" interface for FPV flying.
  So using a wii motion control isn't THAT farfetched at all. Doesn't make the video in question any less fake, of course, but it does make it a smarter fake.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
30. Re: Not Surprising. by shadowrat · 2012-03-22 23:45 · Score: 2
  
  Because storage space is a precious commodity on a boat. Why waste space with some exercise bike pump that's only helpful in a situation that crops up in the movies far more than real life. Even if you find yourself stranded in a leaky boat, how much is that pedal contraption going to really help you? sooner or later you are going to fall asleep and the boat fills with water anyway.
  
  Think of it like spare tires. It's certainly possible to get 4 flat tires in the same trip, but is it worth always wasting all your storage space to keep 4 spares in the car?
31. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  Terrible CG? I'd LOVE to see your offering. I thought the vid was well done though I didn't believe it for a minute. I'm not sure how it can be "terrible" when it fooled a LOT of people. IMO, "terrible" would be obvious. Perhaps you are just Diva'ing... yea, that has to be it.
32. Re: Not Surprising. by jythie · 2012-03-23 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  It is not that the CG fooled 'lots' of people,.. like blurry bigfoot videos it simply preyed on existing social divisions. It was a narrative that appealed to a certain group of people and they set up the same battle lines they always stand behind. It could have been a still photograph and people still would have ranted about it being real.
33. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, nope. It's precisely about muscles and where and how they are attached. People fly allright using gliders, so mass isn't an issue at all. You could attach gliders to your arms, but it would not be a very comfortable way of flying, if at all possible. The reason can be found from looking at it as a basic statics problem. Suppose the center of lift is somewhere in the middle of each wing -- thus far away from your body. So you're trying to support yourself on a very long lever. Imagine attaching a 2x4 (a piece of structural lumber) to each arm, stretching your arms out, and resting the 2x4s on two wooden posts driven in say 1.5m away from your body's center axis. Now try lifting yourself up. Good luck.
34. Re: Not Surprising. by kilfarsnar · 2012-03-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ya I'm surpised anyone fell for this at all. Anyone who even knows a tiny tiny bit about anatomy of either humans or birds knows we just don't have the muscles for anything like that.
  Though I didn't immediately realize it was a hoax, I did think to myself "Man, that guy must have pecs of steel!"
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
35. Re: Not Surprising. by Kalewa · 2012-03-23 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  Actually it *was* an original plot. Better love story than Twilight too.
36. Re: Not Surprising. by ah.clem · 2012-03-23 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't buy a leaky boat. Just sayin'.
  
  --
  "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
37. Re: Not Surprising. by cayenne8 · 2012-03-23 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  ...it simply preyed on existing social divisions.
  | Could you expand on this?
  What 'social divisions' are you talking about here? Stupid vs Intelligent...?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
38. Re: Not Surprising. by Urban+Garlic · 2012-03-23 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Done earlier than that, check out the Gossamer Condor from 1977. This looks like it's probably an ancestor of Daedalus.
  
  --
  2*3*3*3*3*11*251
39. Re: Not Surprising. by PPH · 2012-03-23 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think a skilled designer could adapt a foot pedal (or two) to an existing diaphragm pump without it taking up too much space. They use foot pumps on kayaks. Not for leaks, but because they tend to take on water in normal use. Space is certainly at a premium in a kayak.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
40. Re: Not Surprising. by tehcyder · 2012-03-23 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's the typical Slashdot delay. I'm sure the original story will pop up in a week or two, followed by a couple dupes.
  Can I just say in advance that I think it's amazing someone has finally managed to crack the age-old dream of flying like a bird?
  Thx.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
41. Re: Not Surprising. by lessthan · 2012-03-23 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would point out that we all tend to believe things that we want to be true, even when we are aware of the bias. True human flight( a person just jumping into the sky, up, up and away) was been a collective dream for all of recorded history and probably before. It is a nice soft spot in the human psyche that is easy to exploit.
  
  --
  Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
42. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, when it was called "Dances with Wolves" or maybe "Ferngully". Plus there's that other movie....
43. Re: Not Surprising. by darkonc · 2012-03-23 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  And visually - without deep inspection - it looked like a pretty good fake! Why wasn't this story on /.? :)
  Because too many slashdot readers looked at the video, went "nice fake", and went on to other interesting things?
  
  --
  Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
44. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  "finished cumming"? really? "came" or hell, even "cummed" would be more in order.
45. Re: Not Surprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-25 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think he's responding to the "just like Daedelus" line. In other words, "the mythological figure of Icarus was the one who crashed, not the mythological figure of Daedelus." Quoting information about the crash of a flying machine doesn't really refute that.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daedalus
46. Re: Not Surprising. by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-26 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  "all wings considered equal" -- gliders and bird wings are not equal. with bird wings, lift is created by rotating the wing like you rotate your shoulder and specific flapping motions that reduce drag and allow liftoff, despite their weight. birds glide too, but they don't use many muscles to do so. gliding !== flapping.
  
  Imagine attaching a 2x4 (a piece of structural lumber) to each arm
  are those 2x4s hollow? you know, like bird bones are? birds are not extremely muscular animals as you suggest is required to fly.
  
  Adaptations for flight
  The most obvious adaptation to flight is the wing, but because flight is so energetically demanding birds have evolved several other adaptations to improve efficiency when flying. Birds' bodies are streamlined to help overcome air-resistance. Also, the bird skeleton is hollow to reduce weight, and many unnecessary bones have been lost (such as the bony tail of the early bird Archaeopteryx), along with the toothed jaw of early birds, which has been replaced with a lightweight beak. .... The vanes of each feather have hooklets called barbules that zip the vanes of individual feathers together, giving the feathers the strength needed to hold the airfoil ...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Squirrel suit by 18_Rabbit · 2012-03-22 10:53 · Score: 2

Oh well, i guess it's back to the jet powered flying squirrel suit.
1. Re:Squirrel suit by mikael · 2012-03-22 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or the flying lawn mower. That was the first spoof flying video that I saw online.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
2. Re:Squirrel suit by sconeu · 2012-03-22 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Jay Leno gave that away to get new NSX #1
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
3. Re:Squirrel suit by digitac · 2012-03-22 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  You mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26PpA1kFIWw It's not fake, you can buy a kit. http://flyingthingz.com/products.html It's an application of the theorem that with enough thrust, anything will fly. Personally, I prefer the flying dog house.
4. Re:Squirrel suit by PPH · 2012-03-22 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Its real. I've see one of them in person at a local R/C park.
  Take a look at that video (in the parent post). In the first few seconds when that woman is carrying the mower out, she turns it sideways for a second. You can see the airfoil shape of the wing/body and that the sides and wheels are thin fakes.
  The F-117 is actually a better demonstration of the 'anything will fly' theorem.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:Squirrel suit by mikael · 2012-03-22 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes that was the video. I thought it was a real lawn mower at the time. They have just shaped the frame at the sides to look like a lawnmower. Other shapes have been tanks and bulldozers.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Poor schlubs by Cazekiel · 2012-03-22 11:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel? "YEEEA!" tears in their eyes, stumbling on speech, inspirational music... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics. I find that particularly amusing.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
1. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Not really. I doubt they expected it to last very long, all it takes is one person to ask to witness the flight first hand and it falls apart. They said they weren't expecting this much attention anyway, it was clearly just a bit of fun. Besides, how could they feel stupid when so many morons around the world actually thought it was real?
2. Re:Poor schlubs by Cazekiel · 2012-03-22 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't matter to me. If I tried faking something like that to make it look as real as possible, when it can be totally debunked with on tiny viewing--with that much drama-llamas? If I'd been fooled (wasn't), I'd think "Huh. Stupid jerks," then moved on to watch more vids.
  
  --
  You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
3. Re:Poor schlubs by joh · 2012-03-22 11:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why stupid? They got half the Internet viewing a video and discussing if it is real or not. That was well done and they obviously got everything out of it that they wanted and then some. If they had included some visible motors and a fake battery pack (hey, 2000 Watts for 60 seconds is just 33 Wh, less than the 45 Wh of an iPad) and put more work into the flapping of the wings, it would have more convincing, but still.
  Harmless fun, cleverly done, I'd say.
4. Re:Poor schlubs by Cazekiel · 2012-03-22 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Clever perhaps, but I'm targeting the drama behind it. If it'd just been them doing what they did with a few "a'right!"s and what not, big deal. But it had its own score, the teary eyes and all. That's what I find amusing.
  
  --
  You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
5. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you mean the Fox Snooz scribes?
6. Re:Poor schlubs by jpmorgan · 2012-03-22 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  2000W, even for 60s, at 12V is over 150 amps. Try pulling that much current through any small lightweight battery pack and you're going to experience a large explosion.
7. Re:Poor schlubs by amoeba1911 · 2012-03-22 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're severely misinformed, battery technology has improved quite a bit over the past few years.
  Here's an example, at 12 Volts this battery can supply 325 Amps continuous. That's about 3500 watts, and this battery weighs just 442 grams (less than a pound) and it costs only $50.
  If you want even higher wattage, you can get higher voltage batteries, at 37 volts this battery pack can supply a whopping 12000 watts continuous, and weighs only about 3 pounds.
8. Re:Poor schlubs by schroedingers_hat · 2012-03-22 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  What is this (c) unit of discharge they are quoting?
9. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel? "YEEEA!" tears in their eyes, stumbling on speech, inspirational music... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics. I find that particularly amusing.
  It's called "acting," something you likely view on a regular basis if you enjoy modern film.
  Next time you attend a stage play, you should ask the actors how stupid they feel for participating.
10. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  "Can you imagine how insanely stupid the participants must feel?"
  Which participants? You mean the other people on the team that performed the hoax?
  You think they didn't notice the thing did not actually fly? You think they where not in on the joke?
  Can't be really, that you mean those "participants" - that would be so stupid.
  Either way, if you'd have read the article you'd know the whole thing was an experiment in media, and it seems it was rather successful.
11. Re:Poor schlubs by DerPflanz · 2012-03-22 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  ... only to have their act be completed debunked by the most basic physics.
  You forget that most people's knowledge on physics comes from Hollywoord. Hence it is completely understandable that they buy into this.
  
  --
  -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
12. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  Capacity of the battery/cell. A lot of battery stuff is measured in the capacity. For example, if you discharge a battery at 1C/h, it means 1 battery capacity per hour. This stays relatively the same for each chemistry. Discharging a 1000Ah lead acid battery at 100C is just as bad for the battery as discharging a 1Ah lead acid at 100C.
13. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  C rate is the maximum discharge rate of the battery, it is a multiplier of the capacity.
  So this battery: 5Ah x 65c = 325A over ~55 seconds.
14. Re:Poor schlubs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  A discharge rate of 5C means you can discharge the battery at 5 times it's mAh capacity.
  If you have 5000mAh and 5C this means the max discharge current is 25000mA.
Is anyone actually shocked? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:03 · Score: 0

It was clearly fake just from a physics point of view. I don't think anyone will be surprised by this news.
Can people fly? by tick-tock-atona · 2012-03-22 11:04 · Score: 4, Funny

I bet the conversation went a little like this..
Saw it and it was brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:05 · Score: 1

IMHO, he skated the perfect edge of believability. After all, it's not that different from launching a hang glider. I see gulls launch into the wind all the time with virtually no flapping. When you watch the video you find yourself making assumptions about wind and stuff. You figure the flapping must have added just enough. For some people the angle of the camera tells them it's fake. I figured it was a wide-angle camera that could get the helmet even without being aimed towards it. For me, I was wondering how he got his legs tucked up since it didn't have any visible harness. I have to admit I was fooled though until I read the skeptical comments.
1. Re:Saw it and it was brilliant by Carnildo · 2012-03-22 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  The launch may have been believable, but the landing was dead wrong. There are only two ways to land a flapping-wing aircraft if you've got legs instead of wheels, and he didn't use either of them.
  
  --
  "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Justice must be served by cstec · 2012-03-22 11:06 · Score: 1, Funny

How long are we going to accept excuses for what is patent fraud? If he doesn't get smacked hard, we're going to be putting up with this crap indefinitely.
1. Re:Justice must be served by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Lolwut
2. Re:Justice must be served by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, this is like one of countless other silly Youtube special effects videos (the sort that seem to be all the Mythbusters test these days). Did anyone seriously believe this was real?
  You want to smack this person for other folks' blind credulity? Why not focus on people who are actually causing harm with their fraud? Quacks, autism fraudsters, 'psychics', witch doctors, immoral priests, and so forth
3. Re:Justice must be served by hawguy · 2012-03-22 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  How long are we going to accept excuses for what is patent fraud? If he doesn't get smacked hard, we're going to be putting up with this crap indefinitely.
  If you think that's fraud, wait until you see Star Wars - some may be fooled, but I for one don't believe that the Death Star could generate enough power to destroy an entire planet with a death ray.
4. Re:Justice must be served by tftp · 2012-03-22 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  but I for one don't believe that the Death Star could generate enough power to destroy an entire planet with a death ray.
  Would you bet the existence of your homeworld on that belief of yours about a technology that you know nothing about? A GRB certainly can mess the planet up.
5. Re:Justice must be served by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
I can't believe I fell for this! by cvtan · 2012-03-22 11:15 · Score: 5, Funny

You guys made me click on a link to FOX NEWS???? Arrghh!

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
1. Re:I can't believe I fell for this! by felipekk · 2012-03-22 11:19 · Score: 2
  
  Wait. It's from Fox News! So maybe they actually did manage to create those wings and fly!
2. Re:I can't believe I fell for this! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, Fox News is not 100% completely dishonest, otherwise Oil Prices would be low, Crime non-existent, and Cake non-fattening.
3. Re:I can't believe I fell for this! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed; I'd say that a single Youtube video is a more credible source of information than Fox News. However, it is dubious to believe a thing simply because it is reported as false by Fox News. Fox News is much more like random noise and should simply be dismissed outright when considered for any use (save possibly random number generation).
4. Re:I can't believe I fell for this! by wvmarle · 2012-03-22 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  What that guy really pulled off is getting more impressive by the minute!
It was fake? Really? by stoofa · 2012-03-22 11:17 · Score: 2

A distinct lack of fertilizer, Mr. Holmes.
This is awesome by sideslash · 2012-03-22 11:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The world needs to be reminded periodically not to take itself so seriously.
Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic by F69631 · 2012-03-22 11:42 · Score: 2

Just look at the damn video.
I know I have, as a part of my (software) engineering degree, studied more physics than the average person and I might have better intuition about what stuff should look like... but that flight seem in no way, shape or form realistic or natural. The push from the wings hardly correlates with his flight path, etc...
1. Re:Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  I hear ya on this one. I too saw the vid and was skeptical, though I admit that the vid was edited good enough to me to look plausible. I immediately thought about previous similar inventions' failures, the lack of hollow bones, and the fact that even bird flight takes a ridiculous amount of energy; our bodies don't have that kind of efficiency. No way a human could pull this off without first severly emaciating himself (like Christian Bale in The Machinist) and then finding some way to increase muscle leverage like chimps naturally have to give a strength advantage...and then it still isn't likely that such a stunt could be pulled off. If i remember right, our bodies cause too much drag for this kind of flight as it is.
2. Re:Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic by tibit · 2012-03-23 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You can take almost any bird and fill its bones and it'd still fly. Bones are an optimization, not a flight-enabler. Birds can carry stuff, after all, and sometimes that stuff can be pretty heavy and weigh way more than the bird's entire skeleton.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
3. Re:Frak anatomy, the video SEEMS unrealistic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Bennie has something to say about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lHgbbM9pu4
Fakes are easy to spot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:51 · Score: 0

The key element of hiding a fake is to temporarily hide the subject. There are numerous ways of doing this. Blurring the scene, camera jiggle causing the subject to go out of frame, and having something temporarily pass between the camera and the subject. This video has a blurred takeoff and some guy randomly walks diagonally and blocks the landing.
Human Powered Plane by phriedom · 2012-03-22 12:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Like this maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
1. Re:Human Powered Plane by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Awesome, and they won a Kramer prize! Hey buddy!
the batteries by tgibbs · 2012-03-22 12:18 · Score: 1

The flight video could have fooled me. But I just couldn't believe it was real when they showed those little tiny batteries.
It's real! by ionymous · 2012-03-22 12:25 · Score: 1

I believe this may be a fake hoax.
The Grade That the World Gets in Pnysics is D- ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 12:36 · Score: 0

Why do so many gullible people believe? Because they get a D or F
in physics class or AVOID TAKING ANY PHYSICS in high school.
Plenty of USA high school dropouts. google for 'dropout factories' USA.
This is the same as investors in MADOFF PONZI SCHEME.
Many investors don't know basic math. The volatility and RISK/REWARD
ratios in the stock/bond/financial instruments market constantly changes.
Even, if you go to the GAMBLING CASINO in Las Vegas, you cannot consistently
win at a specific rate!
Congrats to the ARTIST in PROVING the increasing gullibility and STUPIDITY of the
world!
raw video by RalfM · 2012-03-22 13:02 · Score: 1

Sad, but not surprising given the effort put into the edits of the videos. No raw footage, but cut together, picture in picture, soundtrack, etc cinemagic...
R

--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russel
I was pretty convinced... by Colven · 2012-03-22 13:03 · Score: 2

and awed when I saw this the other day, although I didn't think much about it after the novelty wore off... which happened pretty quickly.
"Kaayak admitted that he didn't expect the media attention his project would generate, with over 8.9 million views across the world."
Yeah, right. I'd dismiss this if it didn't insult everyone's intelligence. You don't put up the video, a web site, fake a press release, and push it out into the public through the media channels if you don't expect it to get attention. F*** 'em.

--
expletives welcomed
1. Re:I was pretty convinced... by pavon · 2012-03-23 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstand. Yes, the goal was to get publicity, they are just shocked at how well it worked. Wired, BBC, and many other mainstream media sources fell for it.
Proves how dumb people are by Latinhypercube · 2012-03-22 13:06 · Score: 1

This just proves how dumb people are.
I wish there was a Darwinian award for stupidity and subsequent removal from the gene pool.
Disappointed I am. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 13:55 · Score: 0

Man, doesn't THAT just take the Kaayk.
Bright side: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 14:12 · Score: 0

Hey, at least now somebody really WILL build one, out of pique.
What if by WinstonWolfIT · 2012-03-22 14:51 · Score: 1

What would be cool would be power-assisted bird-style wings, something that detects flapping motion and compensates for the subtle positions to remain aerodynamic. If done smoothly the flyer would 'feel' stronger and would experience the actual sense of self-powered flight. How cool would that be.
So wat, it got me by Pirulo · 2012-03-22 15:22 · Score: 1

I was saving already...
P.T. Barnum would be proud. by SternisheFan · 2012-03-22 15:48 · Score: 0

P.T. Barnum made his living doing hoaxes like this one, and is probably looking down and clapping for these guys. Barnum had so many people wanting to get in to see his museum in NYC, but the people already inside wouldn't leave fast enough. That's when he installed a sign over by the exit door, "This way to see the Egress". When people went through and found themselves on the street, they'd have a laugh, saying, "Ole' P.T. got us again!" And although attributed with saying, "There's a sucker born every minute!", here's the real story... http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
Would you like to see my shocked face? by Ranger · 2012-03-22 15:54 · Score: 1

C'mon doesn't anyone watch Gilligan's Island anymore? Remember when Gilligan launches himself off the roof of a hut with a pair of wings flapping them.

Skipper: "Gilligan what are you doing?"

Gilligan: "Skipper, I'm going to fly for help."

Skipper: "Gilligan you can't fly!"

Gilligan: "I can't?"

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
People actually fell for this? by SilverJets · 2012-03-22 16:25 · Score: 1

wow
Dream Of Leonardo da Vinci Translated Into Reality by funnyandspicy · 2012-03-22 16:29 · Score: 1

Aviation has come a long way so far. Starting from Leonardo da vinci to Peoples like Henry Cavendish, Montgolfier Brothers, Sir George Cayley, John Stringfellow, Francis H Wenham, Otto Lilienthal, The wright brothers and many others contributed a lot.. http://goo.gl/2HBEJ
And in other news... by Nogami_Saeko · 2012-03-22 16:30 · Score: 1

Dutch "artist" admits faking video that only fooled the extremely gullible...

Sigh...

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
"Wired" did it by BlueTak · 2012-03-22 16:34 · Score: 2

This video has become "viral" because it has been published on Wired's first page. A simple look showed it was a joke ( the guy is probably lifted by a car ) but the journalist had a strong urge to fly...
1. Re:"Wired" did it by Yvan256 · 2012-03-23 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Lifted by a flying car, you say? Now that I can believe!
It will be possible someday. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 17:30 · Score: 0

I believe with our technology it might actually be possible now. Albeit an expensive and highly complicated venture. It's nice to revisit concepts like this every now and then as technology develops. The execution of their idea was poor but the idea does spark a lot of daydreaming in our geeky minds. If you could build one how would you go about it with today's tech? I found myself taking quite a lot of time trying to figure it out. I don't think we have the right power to weight technologies yet but we're getting close with things like carbon fiber, titanium alloys, and gyroscopes. Just look at what those little quad-rotor helicopters are doing. This might not be so far fetched in the future. We might actually replace hang gliders with birdwings in the future. Will probably still be a niche hobby and people will die but I think it will happen eventually. Just a matter of time and progress.
Re:Better batteries by scsirob · 2012-03-22 19:46 · Score: 1

I think you are wrong here. Check out the Odyssey batteries. A PC680 delivers over 500A for 20 seconds and weighs just over 7kg. 150A for 60 seconds should be no problem. I have one of these to start my Jabiru 3300 aircraft engine and it never fails me.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
The BBC fell for it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 20:23 · Score: 0

Good job there are high quality journalists spending the licence fee at the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17468907
Is there a Nintendo Tie-in? by SternisheFan · 2012-03-22 23:46 · Score: 0

Coincidentally, Nintendo is releasing a new Kid Icarus game on Friday, March 23. 8 months of work on this hoax, must've been a significant amount of money invested by 'some' entity to pay the freight of this CGI work, and Nintendo's 'not talking' to reporters. Was this all a planned hoax in order to build interest in their new release? Lots of money invested in making a video game today. I'm just sayin'...
Hadn't Heard of it, Don't Care by kyrio · 2012-03-23 01:12 · Score: 1

I hadn't heard of this non-story, and I still don't care.
1. Re:Hadn't Heard of it, Don't Care by SternisheFan · 2012-03-23 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  I hadn't heard of this non-story, and I still don't care.
  Fair enough sir. It was something I read on the net, a news story about this maybe being a bogus video and, no, I don't have a 'citation'. I've been a fan of /. for a couple years now, find myself having some free time of late, and thought I'd try my hand at 'posting', or 'contributing' a bit. Didn't mean to piss anyone off. One thing I've learned is that there are all types of personalities here. Hope you have a nice day, guy.
Heh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 04:35 · Score: 0

This wasn't a hoax. People are just stupid.
coulomb ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:15 · Score: 0

What is this (c) unit of discharge they are quoting?
Coulomb ?
Fuckin'...yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 05:37 · Score: 0

News story: GUY FLAPS FAKE WINGS WITH HIS ARMS AND FLIES /.ers: Nah.
Rest of the world: OMFG NOWAI GUYS LOOK IT'S A MIRACLE
News story: GUY FLAPPING FAKE WINGS AND FLYING A "HOAX" (quotes because art is only a hoax if stupid people don't get it) /.ers: Yep.
Rest of the world: START THE FIRE, GET THE ROPES, DRIVE A STAKE
The pilot was having a GREAT time! by billstewart · 2012-03-23 06:29 · Score: 1

I don't care if the video was fake and the physics were all wrong, the pilot was clearly having a great time flying, and that made it fun to watch.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Re:Better batteries by amoeba1911 · 2012-03-24 12:34 · Score: 1

At 7kg it has very low power to weight ratio, so it's terrible for flying things. Go with lithium polymer batteries instead.