Slashdot Mirror


The Hoverboard Flies Closer To Reality

Dave Knott writes: Fans of 1980s cinema were disappointed when the year 2015 arrived without a practical version Marty McFly's hoverboard. Now, a Montréal-based man has brought it closer to reality by setting a new record for longest "flight" by hoverboard. In a filmed test recognized by the Guiness Book of World Records, Catalin Alexandru Duru pilots his somewhat cumbersome looking rig for 250 meters — five times the previous record — at a height of five meters above Quebec's Lake Ouareau. Duru and his business partner "hope to have a new prototype finished by the end of the year and then have hoverboards available for purchase across the country. He wouldn't say how much the prototype cost to build, but said that the first generation of the machine will likely be 'quite expensive.'" "This thing is still quite dangerous," he added, explaining that the pilot uses only his or her feet to fly the contraption. The commercial version's software will limit it to flying below a height of about one-and-a-half meters above the ground.

81 comments

  1. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everywhere you go is on water.

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everywhere you go is on water.

      Serious question : why can't it work over land ?

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If everywhere you go is on water.

      Serious question : why can't it work over land ?

      '

      I'm sure it'll work just fine over land... but when something goes wrong it's gonna hurt a lot more when you hit the ground. Over water is probably a better bet for testing your prototype without a lot of doctor's bills.

    3. Re:Great by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If the power goes out you don't Fallon a hard surface.
      This takes a lot of power and I don't see a big tank for fuel. So I expect that was its range.

      There is a lot of energy to lift itself and say 150lbs of person.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Great by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Not only will it hurt more, but chances are the hoverboard will also break and if it is expensive you are not likely to want it to happen.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    5. Re:Great by ULTROS · · Score: 1

      Oh I doubt it will hurt at all...

    6. Re:Great by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      If the power goes out you don't Fallon a hard surface.
      This takes a lot of power and I don't see a big tank for fuel. So I expect that was its range.

      There is a lot of energy to lift itself and say 150lbs of person.

      Jimmy Fallon?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoverboards don't work on land .. unless you got POWAAHH!!!

  2. above Quebec's Lake Ouareau = flawed approach =;-o by D4C5CE · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they had watched Back "2" The Future for a moment, they'd know the 2015 version isn't supposed to work on water yet. ;-}

  3. But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hoverboards don't work on water.

    1. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BTHB deluxe series works on water whereas the MMFHB standard series does not.

  4. Don't they know? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Those boards don't work on water, unless you got POWAH!

  5. Ducted fans? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like a drone with a guy standing on top. It must chew through LiPo batteries.

    1. Re:Ducted fans? by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking. There are things out there a LOT more like a BttF2 hoverboard, though they only work on metal surfaces: http://hendohover.com/

    2. Re:Ducted fans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a neat contraption, but that's it. Hoverboard is no closer to reality until they discover and harness antigravity, not be creating lift through various aerodynamic means.

    3. Re:Ducted fans? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The problem with antigravity is one little bug in the software and it's "To the Moon, Alice" for you.

    4. Re:Ducted fans? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      You just need a really long extension cord. Of course riding it over water makes that more exciting...

    5. Re:Ducted fans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it looks very cool, a 250 meter maximum flight isn't gonna set the world on fire. Levitation by fan uses a lot of energy, and unless you can build a real-life Tony Stark fusion reactor, the 250 meter number will be improved only by a few percent tops, not orders of magnitude.

    6. Re:Ducted fans? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You don't need "antigravity" (which in all likelihood is impossible). Diamagnetic hoverboards would be possible... if we could make ridiculously powerful, compact halbach arrays in the board. Also you'd need a clever mechanism to detect and deal with flying over ferromagnetic material, or otherwise it's going to smack into your board really hard.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
  6. Umm..... by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    Put a Seat on the thing and you've got yourself a Star Wars jungle speeder bike.

    1. Re:Umm..... by Dereck1701 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are at least two hoverbike projects in progress, they seem quite a bit more mature and practical than this thing but to each their own I suppose.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      http://www.hover-bike.com/MA/
      http://aerofex.com/

  7. Williams WASP X-Jet by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Williams X-Jet did it better and did it 40 years ago.

    45 min duration, speeds of up to 60 mph, and no flying in a straight line over water, but flying in and around trees over land!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He probably holds the record for hoverbucket, not the hoverboard.

    2. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Williams X-Jet did it better and did it 40 years ago.

      45 min duration, speeds of up to 60 mph, and no flying in a straight line over water, but flying in and around trees over land!

      Might be a problem filling up with jet fuel at the local Shell.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    3. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Snufu · · Score: 1

      Wow. We had our flying car - graceful, compact, long range, in 1974, and we collectively said 'meh'?!

    4. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I know! Why didn't they just use plutonium for fuel? Everyone knows you can get that in any convenience store!

    5. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not really, Jet fuel is more or less kerosene/diesel with a few additives to stop gelling at low temps. Well, jet B fuel is anyways. Jet A is a little more tricked out but you could get a close approximation with either kerosene or diesel fuel and a few additives mixed in something like the oil additives for 2 cycle engines. You possibly might need to few engine modifications. The Ceiling of this type of craft just isn't high enough to worry about the air temps that much as long as the ground temp is high enough.

    6. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He actually uses a Mr. Fusion but the energy companies force him to stay silent about it! o.O

    7. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      According to this here are two numbers that would cause the X-Jet to be useless.

      Empty weight: 401 pounds (182 kg) (182 kg)
      Loaded weight: 550 lb (250 kg)

      That would mean that the aircraft could lift 149 lbs in people and fuel. Most people who would be allowed to fly it would be over that weight. If one is 110 lbs one could carry 39 pounds a fuel and maybe get the advertised range. Sorry but that is not a very big market.

    8. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Sorry but that is not a very big market.

      Ya think that in 40 years there might have been some improvements in propulsion technology????

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    9. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Yes, but will it melt steel beams?

    10. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      The service ceiling of the X-Jet is 10,000 feet.

    11. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Thanks for sharing that.

      I suspect that the tech IS in use, but we don't know about it...

      Gimme a "D"...
      Gimme an "A"...
      Gimmie an "R"...
      Gimmie a "P"...
      Gimmie an "A"...

    12. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sure.. I don't see why it wouldn't. They have been using gasoline and diesel to cut steel for ages. Usually it's the larger operations and big steel but petrogen makes a consumer torch that burns gas or diesel and can cut something like 14 inches thick.

    13. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Temp drop is about 3.5 degrees f every 1000 feet. So that's around 35 degrees f drop at the ceiling. Untreated diesel will start separating wax at around 24 degrees F and likely be completely gelled at 18 or so degrees F. So as long as the ground temp is lets say above 35+30, or 65 degrees, there should be little to worry about. Frankly, in an open cockpit, that might be a little low of a range anyways for that height.

      That is without added weight of a fuel heater. You could run a return line near the exhaust or through a port in the intake manifold to heat the fuel and pump it back into the tank eliminating most all gelling concerns as long as the ground temp is above the 24 degrees F. But then you would need a pump large enough to supply the engine as well as return excess fuel and hoses and pressure regulators.

    14. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used a turbofan engine designed for cruise missiles, so there was no way they could have sold it to civilians. The military didn't have any use for it because of the limited range and payload (150lbs including fuel and pilot).

    15. Re: Williams WASP X-Jet by oobayly · · Score: 3, Funny

      In 40 years people have also got a lot heavier.

    16. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Just saying why the original did not catch on.

      The current issues have to do with the propulsion method. It still requires moving large amounts of air which causes significant turbulence. I would not want to be anywhere near one of those when they took off or landed.

      Then there is the noise of the jet engine. Jet turbines designed to produce thrust are quite noisy.

    17. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by matfud · · Score: 1

      And you would need to be totally insane or have a parachute.

    18. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      Jet engine technology isn't secret or mysterious. Plenty of civilian aircraft have jet engines of similar specs. It's just that jet engines are really, really expensive to buy and even more insanely expensive to maintain. And in an aircraft, if your engine fails you can coast to a stop; in this contraption if your engine fails (and it _will_ fail at some point) you die.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    19. Re: Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parachutes are for those who can't manage their own kinetic energy themselves.

    20. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Apparently there has been a reboot effort going on with significant improvements in the noise department.
      They had a (miserably failed) indiegogo-campaign 2+ years ago: https://www.indiegogo.com/proj...

      The turbulence doesn't look half bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Looking at how close people are standing during the landing procedure, it is much, much better than the same situation for helicopters.

      In the noise department the info given by these guys is this:
      "Due to advances in technology the fuel consumption has been reduced by 66% and the 98 decibels of noise is now around 62 Decibels; A helicopter main rotor break the speed of sound that is why you can hear it coming for miles and miles.

      Now you would be lucky to hear the WASP at 500 feet." (from the Youtube comments at the video above)

    21. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It was a reference to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. The conspiracy believers claim that burning jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel beams, and so it's impossible for the beams to have melted and collapsed the tower. They are simply wrong, though: As you point out, burning fuel can reach the required temperature easily, and it wouldn't even need to melt steel - just weaken it enough to collapse under tension.

    22. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      A helicopter comes close. Fast, long range, VTOL capable. But they are horrifically fuel-inefficient, expensive, and the consequences of an accident are a lot worse than for a car with a correspondingly greater requirement for operator training.

    23. Re: Williams WASP X-Jet by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Not true. I weigh about the same as I did 40 years ago. Ok, maybe 5 pounds more.

    24. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It was a reference to the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

      ... and it was treated with the contempt deserved by such conspiracies.

      just weaken it enough to collapse under tension.

      "Compression". Unless you're talking about the Alien Abduction variant of 911, which posits that the whole event was a lifting test and the towers are currently residing in an underground hanger in Area 51.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    25. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, tension. While the building as a whole was under compression, parts of the structure were still under tension. The failure points were in the horizontal struts - this can be seen in images of the burning towers in the form of a significant bulging around the impact site. As the struts failed, the structural outer walls bent outwards until eventually reaching the point of failure and collapsing.

    26. Re:Williams WASP X-Jet by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      [SHRUG]

      I was sitting on an oil rig watching the events (while having a "well control event," so not watching very closely. We had out own more important events going on.) on the newly-installed satellite TV. We probably know more about hydrocarbon-liquid fuelled fires than most people, because we have to be our own fire brigade. No one in the oil industry (TTBOMK) gives that "the fire couldn't reach the necessary temperatures" bullshit the slightest bit of attention. Because all to often we see that hydrocarbon-liquid fuelled fires are perfectly capable of reaching adequate temperatures.

      Tension or compression doesn't make much difference to the softening point.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re: Williams WASP X-Jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?

  8. Little correction. by psergiu · · Score: 1

    Now, a Montreal-based Romanian has brought it closer to reality by setting a new record for longest "flight" by hoverboard.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re: Little correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, Romanian's aren't men. Glad you cleared that up.

    2. Re:Little correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It figures it would take a Romanian to pursue something as utterly stupid and worthless as this.

  9. I believe you mean by jpellino · · Score: 3, Funny

    "GREAT SCOTT !"

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  10. No hoverboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This X-jet looks cool and all, but it is no hoverboard. While the device from TFA isn't indistinguishable from the BTTF-boards either, at least it is controlled with feet only.

  11. Disapointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting some technology from Nikola Tesla all those years ago. Not something simple like that.

  12. It's a multirotor by arpad1 · · Score: 1

    Electrically powered, computer stabilized just like a twenty dollar Cheerson CX-10 but a lot more powerful.

    A couple of years ago Hobbyking ran a contest called the Beer Lift Challenge and the last year they ran it, 2013, the unlimited winner lifted a 58.7 kilogram (130 pound) payload along with, obviously, its own weight. So here we are two years later, better batteries, motors, speed controllers and flight computers, and someone's bumped up that record to enough to lift a man.

    I wonder how long it'll be till the second one's built?

    --
    Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  13. Re:above Quebec's Lake Ouareau = flawed approach = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless you got power

  14. Keep it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a Pit Bull now.

  15. Hoverboard? Please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The damn thing is a flying food processor. Fly over the water and it will turn you into chum.

    So here you are when it throws you off, and now it's out of control

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Guiness just examined the footage? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find it a bit strange Guiness Records only examined the footage before granting the record. The guy is specialized in 3-D visual effects. I mean, anyone has seen the real thing flying? I am living in Montreal and we never heard about this before today. Don't you think if something like that happened at lake Ouareau in August 2014 it wouldn't have made the front page of our local newspapers?

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
    1. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dope. Canadians aren't clever enough to fake moon landings

    2. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the "hoverboard" claim more dubious than the video.

      The video shows a guy riding a device that looks more like a quadcopter than a "hoverboard."

    3. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 0

      He's a Romanian living in Canada... Soviet roots.

    4. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't say that to a Romanian. While they were a part of the communist bloc for a long time, most families suffered so much under it that for the last 25 years the anti Russian sentiment has, for better or worse, guided most of their political decisions.

    5. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect for a record granted by a beer company?

    6. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      I find it a bit strange Guiness Records only examined the footage before granting the record.

      Wait, seriously? The Guinness endorsement was the only thing giving this a shred of credibility in my mind. If they really only saw the video then shame on them. They've been suckered.

      Wish I knew for sure. This bit from the CBC site is the only thing I've seen which suggests that all the Guinness Book people saw was a video:

      "Duru had been working on a prototype for about five years and last August filmed himself flying his new machine over the lake, which is about 130 kilometres north of Montreal, before contacting Guinness.

      "Guinness verified the footage and announced the record on its website Friday."

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    7. Re:Guiness just examined the footage? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the point -- most people with Soviet roots have a somewhat negative outlook on Russia if they aren't Russian. And many Russians have a somewhat negative outlook on the soviet bloc. Soviet culture has shaped the societies of current ex-Soviet countries significantly -- promoting the strong work ethic and "must make things better for my kids" attitude that isn't so widely spread in North America anymore.

  17. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's noisy and blows debris (in this case water) everywhere, unlike the movie version which was completely silent and did not use forced air.

    But the good thing about the hoverboard in the video is that is does not require magic to work.

  18. Best comment on the other website by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    "This will revolutionize the way people get hurt in traffic accidents."

  19. BTTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fans of 1980s cinema were disappointed when the year 2015 arrived without a practical version Marty McFly's hoverboard.

    Fans of 1980s cinema were silly, then. The events of note are expected on October 21. Unless they are using a calendar where the new year starts on October 21, they had no reason to expect anything was invented in January.

    Although, the movie does indicate that there were at least two generations of hoverboards by then...

  20. LiPoSucTion by tepples · · Score: 1

    LiPo is more than just a way to suck out someone's fat cells. It's POWAH.

  21. not even jesus by dirtysnow · · Score: 1

    Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, hoverboarding on the lake. When the disciples saw him shred, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

  22. Whatever, it's been done by blindseer · · Score: 1

    I recall seeing film on TV of a US Army project that had a device very similar to this. It had a man standing on top of a hovering platform with lift provided by fans. I don't recall exactly when this demonstration was performed but judging by the quality of the film, uniform of the "pilot", and other clues it was likely 1950s or 1960s. Perhaps there is a "first" here that I missed.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Whatever, it's been done by matfud · · Score: 1

      1970s I think. Look up the comments as someone posted a link about it.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Or were you thinking of the much earlier jet powered one?

  23. If the driver capsizes... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    ...he will lear a lot about waterboarding.

  24. Am I the only one... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    ...who's first thought was:

    Great ! Yet another noisy machine that ass-hates can use to destroy the serenity of a lake.

  25. Re:above Quebec's Lake Ouareau = flawed approach = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly this bojo has never ridden a Pit Bull.

  26. hendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it currently only works on special surfaces, but hendo puts their hoverboard to shame.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HSheVhmcYLA

    http://hendohover.com

    1. Re:hendo by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      special = conductive non-magnetic

  27. Which would you rather land on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will fly anywhere. I imagine, testing over water is safer.

  28. swole son! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep telling yourself that, McSwell.....