Slashdot Mirror
Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality (theverge.com)
Zapata Racing has begun testing prototypes of a new jet-powered hoverboard called the "Flyboard Air". The Verge published a new interview with the company's CEO, who confirms that a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines, with two more engines used for stabilizaton. Capable of flying up to 100 miles per hour, the jet-powered hoverboard uses an internal algorithm to adjust the thrust and angle of each turboengine, so "It's like we have six systems working together plus my brain and my legs." The company hopes to ultimately interest the military and security sectors in the technology, but they're also working on a smaller version that could be piloted while sitting, which the CEO describes as "extremely small, extremely stable, and something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."
As showcased in BTTF. 2016 tech disappoints.
"...something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."
That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Well, I believe it is an hoax anyway.
Achille Talon
Hop!
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...
URL in posted item has too many hyphens between hoverboard and interview
Williams did this with the WASP in the 1970's. No fancy electronics needed either.
They also tried to sell it to the military, but the military decided that choppers were the go instead.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If getting in the car to drive 3 minutes to McDonalds - as one does - is getting boring, then why not just fuel up the hoverboard and hover to the store to buy your bread. Forget about saving money by spending a few minutes now and then baking your own bread. The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.
What's next, paying other people to actually bring your breakfast to the door for you?
Fuck yeah!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Okay, call me crazy, but I imagine that you could build a vehicle body similar to George Jetson's car, and mount it onto a board just slightly larger than that board. The fuel tank could be much larger, and the vehicle would be substantially less 'X-Games', opening it up to a significantly larger potential market. Such a vehicle would blow electric quadrocopter-based personal transport out of the proverbial water.
...The only caveat is, no one else should be out at that time, or come closer than 150 feet to you. Jet exhaust of 1000 HP, and a couple of stability thrusters so close to ground will kick up so much of small debris, anything down stream of the jet wash is going to suffer greatly. Foreign object reingestion, got to hand it to the military to come up with three word terms, is a major problem in the Harrier jump jets. Harrier also has a few thrust nozzles for stabilization at low air speeds. Harrier landing has to be excruciatingly precise, and zones cleared of small debris.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If you hit a micro-burst (sudden change in air speed) you will get blown off and fall to your death. Having a drone deliver your bread would be more convenient. Flying into a house at a hundred miles per hour would hurt. A bird strike would hurt. You think you'll see power lines at that speed? Ensure you have a backup fuel gauge.
Doesn't look like a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think something is wrong here. It would take nowhere near 1,000 horsepower plus two more engines of unknown output for stabilization to fly a human being. A PT6A turbine engine with 1000,hp output burns .69lb of fuel per horsepower per hour. And it is far more efficient than 6 small turbines. If he was flying on a single 1000hp turbine, he would have burned 50 lbs of fuel in that 4 minute flight. Something doesn't make sense.
That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.
OK this did not start out as a pun, but...
Do we really think that anyone who wants a "hoverboard" gives a flying F*ck about safety?
(The pun is in the "flying" part)
It's a trade-off, and some people: the trade is worth it.
"You can go live on Mars if you never plan on coming back; deeply troubling".
"Uh... yeah... when's boarding again?"
This may revolutionize everyday life as much as the Segway did!! Uh, wait a minute—
From TFA:
"the whole system should be able to land if you have one turboreactor fail. So I’m able to stabilize it even if I lost one engine and we had enough thrust to get down and land. If one turboreactor fails it’s fine, because we have four turboreactors, and we can fly with three. And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors. Everything is threefold, and they speak together, so in case one fails, the two also know which one failed."
Sent from my ENIAC
They keep trying to sell those crappy "hoverboards" in the usa....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A jet-powered hoverboard != a true hoverboard. There, I said it.
How are most traditional "hovercraft" powered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why do jets void the description?
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
The problem isn't the people on the ground. It's the vehicle itself ingesting its own jet wash.
This is awesome - I hope it does not end up like the segway.
Im sure it can be made to be reliable for commercial / military purposes. This can allow soldiers to jump over any obstacle and attack from any angle- awesome -
What I mean is that, as expensive as it looks, if it can replace some chores currently needing a helicopter it could be competitive. Like electric tower / bridge inspections, rescue in difficult terrain and, of curse, military scouting and attacking.
I saw the video. It looks legit. But it eats fuel like campers eat marshmallows. Flight time is mere minutes.
:T:R:A:N:S:
It a fake, you can tell when some of the shots don't have water flying, and others that do, if not a fake explain why some of the shot have a mist below and others that don't?
Because his height above the water varies. Sometimes he's close enough to kick up mist, sometimes he isn't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
No, parent poster is right; it's fake. Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments. For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move. It's quite obvious this is a jet-powered quad drone with a mannequin on top. At other times I suspect a crane, and the footage is very carefully cut and cropped to not show it.
Seriously, the video is crap. I am not a pro and I could probably put together something close to it using Premiere. Hell, even shooting the footage I can think of a dozen different ways to actually get the footage that don't involve a working hoverboard... could probably put the entire thing together in about a week on a budget of less than $5K if I rope some of my friends into the scam.
Just watch... they'll fire off an Indiegogo or Kickstarter based on the footage, raise loads of money and then pull a "Coolest Cooler" where they suddenly claim they need more money... and more money... and more money... and then vanish. While Coolest haven't done that yet, I predict that's what's going to happen. It's not hard to hide investments and file bankruptcy... yeah, it's fraud but some people only care about making money.
Oh, and since when has "horsepower" been a measure of jet power? Yeah, the whole thing just reeks of scam.
Not to mention they'd make so much noise, they'd be banned, well, everywhere.
you had me at "backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel "
Not being a backpack means:
1) You don't burn your legs.
2) It doesn't have to be light enough to carry.
3) You don't have to design so much for the human form.
-------
I do note they didn't tell us how long the flight lasts. The video shows him flying for only about 75 seconds. I bet that's about the maximum amount of time you can go without re-fueling.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.
He effected a bored affect.
Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments.
I just watched carefully and didn't notice anything incongruous.
For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move.
At what timecode? I didn't see any shot were the pilot literally doesn't move. What would you like to do as he flies 20m in the air - wave his arms around, maybe dance a jig?
I'm not sure why everyone's screaming hoax so vociferously. We've had jetpacks since the 60s. This is just a jetpack stuck under someone's feet instead of attached to their back.
Here's another flight, single shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And possibly the same flight, certainly the same location, different angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
When I read the headline, I was immediately concerned that they might be using an external algorithm! What a disaster that would be! I was relieved to see that the editor pointed out that they are using an internal algorithm. Whew!
My next worry was .... what if they only used one WiFi channel and one sensor!? That would be horrendous! But then I read TFA and saw a quote from CEO Franky Zapata saying "And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors". Whew! Another design botch happily missed.
That functions a lot less like a Back to the Future hoverboard (http://gph.is/14VEqAs) and more like the Green Goblin's glider (http://cdn.instructables.com/F36/11RQ/H994BU7B/F3611RQH994BU7B.LARGE.jpg)
How can the thing in the picture have *four* 250hp engines on it? Where, in a bag of holding?
And then there's how much fuel *four* 250hp engines would burn per minute.
Go 100mph? Have any of you ever stood up in a convertible going 60mph?
Finally, *why* would it need the four engines? I'd be less disbelieving if they said 25hp engines, and 25 mph; with their claims, he crashed because he was out of fuel in five minutes.
mark
There's something odd about a "hoverboard" promotion where the promoter's last name translates to "shoe" in Spanish.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
For those of you that didn't catch it, "Oscorp" is a Green Goblin reference. (Captain Obvious, at your service!)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Moller Skycar kept the scam going for 30 years. The irony is that it is now _technically_ possible to build a working skycar, but the licensing and liability issues make it economically infeasible -- just like this foot-strapped jetpack. It looks fake, as in it doesn't appear to produce near enough thrust to counter the 200 pounds of weight. Interesting question, whether a computer feedback loop could divert thrust fast enough to balance the pilot flailing around; I suspect the computer could handle it, but not the mechanical components. You can't really instantly change the amount of thrust coming out of a jet.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
And it's whisper quiet!
WHAT?
I said, it's whisper quiet!
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.
And how is a hoverboard not a hovercraft?
I think you'll find they're related quite a lot...
Regardless, hovering is hovering, and there're multiple ways to achieve it:) (Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.