ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th April 2016, 09:25 AM   #1
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Flyboard Air - An actual "hoverboard" Is it real? / 4 reasons why Flyboard is a hoax

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


https://www.facebook.com/mastersofdi...4097971536796/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...-reveal-video/


Interview here
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 09:38 AM   #2
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Doesn't look real. This appears to be a guy dangling from a helicopter with the lines edited out. In the real world, that much mass on top of the board would cause a high center of gravity, making it very tippy.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 09:50 AM   #3
CJW
Muse
 
CJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 726
plus the camera never gives you a good look above the guy when he's in the air.
__________________
I am the true Lord of the Dance...
not matter what those idiots at work say!
CJW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 09:54 AM   #4
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Where on earth is it storing enough energy to do that?

(It's not, would be my guess)
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 09:56 AM   #5
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Here is a different one, with a much wider base. Even with a wider, more stable base, notice how hard it is to balance on. Yet, the Flyboard Air operator never wobbles, even on "test one".

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:04 AM   #6
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
A random RC turbine engine:

http://www.jetcatusa.com/rc-turbines...tails/p200-sx/

52 lbs thrust
~14" long
24.5 fluid oz per minute fuel consumption at full power

4 of these would provide 200# thrust and consume a thousand fluid ounces of diesel in a ten minute run. That's ~8 gallons, for a fuel weight of 60 pounds.

So, I dunno if the filmed object is real, but it seems unquestioned rejection is, as usual, as unhelpfully unskeptical as unquestioned acceptance.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:14 AM   #7
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Here is a different one, with a much wider base. Even with a wider, more stable base, notice how hard it is to balance on. Yet, the Flyboard Air operator never wobbles, even on "test one".

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
In one segment, about 1:00 in, it seems to me the vehicle and rider might be describing an arc from a long radius above him. Also, the rider is wearing a fall protection harness. In terms of flight testing, it would be reasonable for the pilot of such a device to try it out while attached to a safety point above the flight area, such as a helicopter. Like rock climbing while on belay from a top rope.

Presenting a test without mentioning a safety helicopter seems more than a bit dishonest.

So questions:
Fuel consumption required for the amount of thrust and run time
Type of turbines available for this application, various sizes, fuels and capabilities

If I can quickly Google up a random turbine off the shelf that might be capable, I'd expect an inventor to be able to find a suitable engine over what has supposedly been a 4 year dev process.

I cannot reject the reality of this video out of hand. But it seems fuel volume and use of an unmentioned safety helicopter remain in question.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:19 AM   #8
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
A random RC turbine engine:

http://www.jetcatusa.com/rc-turbines...tails/p200-sx/

52 lbs thrust
~14" long
24.5 fluid oz per minute fuel consumption at full power

4 of these would provide 200# thrust and consume a thousand fluid ounces of diesel in a ten minute run. That's ~8 gallons, for a fuel weight of 60 pounds.

So, I dunno if the filmed object is real, but it seems unquestioned rejection is, as usual, as unhelpfully unskeptical as unquestioned acceptance.

Could you point me to the unquestioned rejection to which you refer?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:22 AM   #9
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Could you point me to the unquestioned rejection to which you refer?
Post numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a start. Then all the usual pile on posts I predict coming this afternoon informing me how utterly wrong I am.


Including the ones telling me this post is wrong.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:26 AM   #10
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Post numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a start. Then all the usual pile on posts I predict coming this afternoon informing me how utterly wrong I am.


Including the ones telling me this post is wrong.
Post no. 4 being this from me:

Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Where on earth is it storing enough energy to do that?

(It's not, would be my guess)


Which includes a question and a guess - you can tell it's a guess cos it says 'would be my guess' at the end.

I really wouldn't define that as 'unquestioned rejection, in fact, it's not because it has a question in it and a self confessed guess.

I can post some unquestioned rejection if you like, just for comparison.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:27 AM   #11
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Perhaps my standards of what constitute contemplative analysis of claims disconform with your own.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:29 AM   #12
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
From the interview (the last link in the OP), the fuel is coming from the tank on his back. It's Jet A1 fuel. It has four engines that produce 250hp each.

All their testing has been over water and he has fallen several times.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:31 AM   #13
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
A random RC turbine engine:

http://www.jetcatusa.com/rc-turbines...tails/p200-sx/

52 lbs thrust
~14" long
24.5 fluid oz per minute fuel consumption at full power

4 of these would provide 200# thrust and consume a thousand fluid ounces of diesel in a ten minute run. That's ~8 gallons, for a fuel weight of 60 pounds.

So, I dunno if the filmed object is real, but it seems unquestioned rejection is, as usual, as unhelpfully unskeptical as unquestioned acceptance.
In the interview linked in post 1, the inventor claims 4 turbines with 250 lbs thrust each, plus 2 on the sides for stability. I think we're up to more than 8 gallons of "kerosene", and the rider isn't wearing anything capable of storing more than 2-3 liters.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:31 AM   #14
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Perhaps my standards of what constitute contemplative analysis of claims disconform with your own.
Perhaps I'm just in a really bad mood. My apologies.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:33 AM   #15
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Post numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a start. Then all the usual pile on posts I predict coming this afternoon informing me how utterly wrong I am.


Including the ones telling me this post is wrong.
Post 2 is not unquestioned rejection. It states how the video appears, using technical terms like "look".

eta: Post 5 is also not unquestioned rejection, it is comparing the two hoverboards and noticing the large discrepancies.

Last edited by wareyin; 27th April 2016 at 10:39 AM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:42 AM   #16
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Post 2 closes with a bold statement which rejects the claim of the video out of hand, without interrogating the universe to discover if it is true or could be engineered around to avoid.

Apollo hoax proponents make the same exact argument about rockets. It's solvable engineering. Have the designers actually done so? Dunno. If he is test flying with a safety cable the cable might be helping hold him upright, hiding a problem from themselves. Maybe.

I was looking for evidence of down wash on the water and there might be some but it's difficult to tell if it's just the thrust from the board.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:48 AM   #17
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
4 turbines with 250 lbs thrust each, plus 2 on the sides for stability.
Actually, he claims 250 hp. But that could be a mistake by the reporter.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:48 AM   #18
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,965
I actually think it's real. Why would he propose such short flight times, if it was fake ? Jetpack from 60s could do this, this doesn't look all that much smaller (including tank on the back). Also that's what's the harness for. It hold the tank on the back.

Last edited by Dr.Sid; 27th April 2016 at 10:51 AM.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 10:52 AM   #19
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Post 2 closes with a bold statement which rejects the claim of the video out of hand, without interrogating the universe to discover if it is true or could be engineered around to avoid.

Apollo hoax proponents make the same exact argument about rockets. It's solvable engineering. Have the designers actually done so? Dunno. If he is test flying with a safety cable the cable might be helping hold him upright, hiding a problem from themselves. Maybe.

I was looking for evidence of down wash on the water and there might be some but it's difficult to tell if it's just the thrust from the board.
Without interrogating the universe? Post 2 closes with a description of the physics of the universe.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:00 AM   #20
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Uh, no. You make a claim that by implication means a particular configuration cannot ever in any circumstances work. I counter assert that engineering of vertical thrust systems to achieve vertical stability is a real thing. Did they do so? It looks to me as if the thrusters might be canted a bit outboard rather than perfectly vertical, for instance. That is one technique.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:18 AM   #21
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
And looking at the interview posted in #1 one can read that the tubines are controlled by software, just as in quadcopters.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:20 AM   #22
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Also the inventors are following on from their previous invention that used water pumped up to the board from a jet ski, thus would have some experience standing on a tippy thing.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:23 AM   #23
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by CynicalSkeptic View Post
Actually, he claims 250 hp. But that could be a mistake by the reporter.
Whoops, my mistake. Actually, if it was 250 hp, that is much, much more powerful than the 52 lbs thrust model brought up earlier. The 52 lb thrust ones seem to be listed around 225 Newtons, which comes out to around 0.31 hp. A 250 hp turbine is going to require a lot more fuel than a 0.31 hp one, yet the pilot didn't even have enough carrying capacity for a 10 minute flight on 4-6 turbines in the 0.31 hp range.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:27 AM   #24
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
In the interview they claim a combined thousand horsepower total for the thrust engines. Not sure how they calculate that. And that's a hellacious pile of hydrocarbons. I find diesel contains 40 kWH per gallon:
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kWh...+of+diesel+oil

so ten minutes of flight time at 1000hp output should be able to lead us to a fuel capacity requirement to find out if their claims are even feasible.

I don't have time to math now, I have scenery to fix this afternoon.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:29 AM   #25
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
See how skeptical questioning can work, here? I may very well conclude by the end of the day that the device is impossible, or maybe not. But reaching Premature Certainty after watching one video ain't it.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:38 AM   #26
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
See how skeptical questioning can work, here? I may very well conclude by the end of the day that the device is impossible, or maybe not. But reaching Premature Certainty after watching one video ain't it.
I am glad that your slow process may lead you to the same place that others have used a much faster process to reach. Being able to understand how a claim can be false more rapidly than others does not equal "Premature Certainty", however.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:41 AM   #27
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Nor does it mean you are correct when you reach conclusions without examining the information. If a person reaches a rapid conclusion because they already know certain things, that differs from a conclusion reached by personal incredulity.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:46 AM   #28
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,152
I really don't know. However, it will soon become clear. If it is demonstrated before a real audience, it's real, if it is only ever shown on YouTube, it's false.

hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:47 AM   #29
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Nor does it mean you are correct when you reach conclusions without examining the information. If a person reaches a rapid conclusion because they already know certain things, that differs from a conclusion reached by personal incredulity.
Indeed. When one knows certain things, once is able to more rapidly understand how these videos can be faked. When one has to "ask the universe" whether or not a video is a hoax, one may die of old age before the universe gets around to providing an answer.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2016, 11:49 AM   #30
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Have a nice day.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 01:48 AM   #31
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,699
If they are burning fuel, where is the flame? I notice something underneath for a few shots but not all. That is not flame. Just some distortion in the air.

Only looked at the video in the OP.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 02:44 AM   #32
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
In the interview they claim a combined thousand horsepower total for the thrust engines. Not sure how they calculate that. And that's a hellacious pile of hydrocarbons. I find diesel contains 40 kWH per gallon:
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kWh...+of+diesel+oil

so ten minutes of flight time at 1000hp output should be able to lead us to a fuel capacity requirement to find out if their claims are even feasible.

I don't have time to math now, I have scenery to fix this afternoon.
It's Jet A1, not diesel, though I couldn't tell you how much extra oomph per gallon you get from it.

The only thing that leapt out at me was when he landed. They don't actually show the landing...there's a shot of him coming down, then a close up of the bottom of the unit, and then a hop with it on the ground. It struck me as an odd way of showing this device off...not showing him actually land. Now someone'll point out this is a different vid than the one I saw last week...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 04:10 AM   #33
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,965
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
If they are burning fuel, where is the flame? I notice something underneath for a few shots but not all. That is not flame. Just some distortion in the air.

Only looked at the video in the OP.
Can you see the plane on commercial airplanes ? They state it's turbine jet engine, not rocket.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 05:29 AM   #34
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 31,979
It is odd they don't show the take off, or landing. You can see some heat waves coming from the bottom of the device in some shots. I have to guess it uses similar software to the Segway, and wheeled "hoverboards"... I can't say for sure, one way or the other, if it's "real" or not.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 28th April 2016 at 05:34 AM.
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 05:39 AM   #35
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,750
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Where on earth is it storing enough energy to do that?

(It's not, would be my guess)
My first thought. I liked that they used "Shoot to Thrill" from "Iron Man 2". I have often thought that the Iron Man suit isn't crazy. If we had some imaginary source of power.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 05:40 AM   #36
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
It's Jet A1, not diesel, though I couldn't tell you how much extra oomph per gallon you get from it.

The only thing that leapt out at me was when he landed. They don't actually show the landing...there's a shot of him coming down, then a close up of the bottom of the unit, and then a hop with it on the ground. It struck me as an odd way of showing this device off...not showing him actually land. Now someone'll point out this is a different vid than the one I saw last week...

The differences between jet a, diesel, and cowboy lantern kerosene are mostly academic and irrelevant to this discussion.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 05:45 AM   #37
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
If they are burning fuel, where is the flame? I notice something underneath for a few shots but not all. That is not flame. Just some distortion in the air.

Only looked at the video in the OP.
For the same reason you don't see flames coming out of a 747. Or a Honda Civic, for that matter -- visible flames are wasted energy. All combustion takes place inside the mechanism.

You can see a hot plume of exhaust coming down from the bottom of the board many times in the video.

Given that RC sized turbines exist, the motors are what concern me the least.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 05:57 AM   #38
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,551
Here's an article where the inventor/developer Franky Zapata discusses it in more detail.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11...oard-interview
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 06:11 AM   #39
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
I have to guess it uses similar software to the Segway, and wheeled "hoverboards"
Yes, the interview touches on how much work they put into the software to keep it stabilized.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2016, 06:12 AM   #40
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Here's an article where the inventor/developer Franky Zapata discusses it in more detail.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11...oard-interview
It's almost as if you didn't click the last link in the OP.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.