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 30th April 2016, 03:27 PM   #81
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
The intake pressure around an inlet is spherical, and the accelerated air on the outlet has a direction to the pressure. I built pop-pop boats with my kids a few years ago and that's how they work. Water is sucked in and out the same tube but forward motion results. So while airflow above the turbine deck is something to look for, not finding it with spare information is inconclusive.
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 1st May 2016, 04:43 AM   #82
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUogzafUug

You can find also other newer videos under that video ..

Last edited by Dr.Sid; 1st May 2016 at 04:46 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 1st May 2016, 05:30 AM   #83
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,108
Well, I guess I was wrong. It is real.
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 1st May 2016, 08:54 AM   #84
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
This is what a real hoverboard looks like:

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
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 09:09 AM   #85
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
This is what a real hoverboard looks like:

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
Yeah, this is the guy who they just bested.
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 1st May 2016, 09:16 AM   #86
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
I'd have thought that the power (and thus fuel) requirements would be far easier with fans rather than jets for any distance.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 09:56 AM   #87
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I will humbly accept heartfelt apologies from the knee-jerk nattering nabobs of negativism.

Please form a single line.

Skeptical inquiry of new ideas is not the same as cynical rejection of new ideas. This thread is a fine example of what we could be doing but are frequently not doing.

Argument from Incredulity is not skepticism. It might be the first seed question leading a skeptic through a process of inquiry, but cannot be the first and last step. Announcing you already know the answer is the worst possible first question one could ask.

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 1st May 2016 at 10:00 AM.
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 1st May 2016, 10:01 AM   #88
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I'd have thought that the power (and thus fuel) requirements would be far easier with fans rather than jets for any distance.
For a small outlet you need high exhaust velocity, so jets are a natural choice. The converse of this is that you can get by with a low exhaust velocity if the outlet area is large enough, which is why helicopters have such large rotors.

Fans are a good choice for a winged aircraft which uses the fans for thrust, since in this case the thrust doesn't have to be too great (thrust-to-weight ratio is less than one).

Last edited by WhatRoughBeast; 1st May 2016 at 10:02 AM.
WhatRoughBeast 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 1st May 2016, 10:10 AM   #89
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
For a small outlet you need high exhaust velocity, so jets are a natural choice. The converse of this is that you can get by with a low exhaust velocity if the outlet area is large enough, which is why helicopters have such large rotors.
Yes, but in this case, you have the option of choosing either and setting the outlet size.


Is ground effect important for this type of craft?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 10:21 AM   #90
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
I will humbly accept heartfelt apologies from the knee-jerk nattering nabobs of negativism.

Please form a single line.

Skeptical inquiry of new ideas is not the same as cynical rejection of new ideas. This thread is a fine example of what we could be doing but are frequently not doing.

Argument from Incredulity is not skepticism. It might be the first seed question leading a skeptic through a process of inquiry, but cannot be the first and last step. Announcing you already know the answer is the worst possible first question one could ask.
Well the original video was fishy. It's ok to say 'we'll see about that' ..
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 1st May 2016, 10:23 AM   #91
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Yes, but in this case, you have the option of choosing either and setting the outlet size.


Is ground effect important for this type of craft?
AFAIK it really starts to kick in when the altitude is comparable with size of wing or nozzle. Glider few feet of the ground ? Check. Helicopter few feet of the ground ? Sure ! But with jets and rockets, unless you basically plug the nozzle, nope.
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 1st May 2016, 10:32 AM   #92
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
In this case there are 4 nozzle outlets in a gang. Would ground effect be related to the actual nozzle diameter or would the collective diameter of thrust increase the height of ground effect? As I said upthread I expect to learn something here, and I didnt know this about GE.

In any event, the flyboard launches and lands on a platform that appears to be openwork or mesh deck of some kind, presumably for this reason as well as preventing heat damage to ground surfaces.
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 1st May 2016, 10:50 AM   #93
Didymus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I'd have thought that the power (and thus fuel) requirements would be far easier with fans rather than jets for any distance.
For example, see the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee (see Wikipedia) which first flew in 1957, The pilot stood on top of a 7 foot diameter ducted fan driven by three 44 hp piston engines.
Didymus 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 1st May 2016, 11:02 AM   #94
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,679
Originally Posted by Didymus View Post
For example, see the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee (see Wikipedia) which first flew in 1957, The pilot stood on top of a 7 foot diameter ducted fan driven by three 44 hp piston engines.
I was always fascinated by this concept- it seemed too much like the design of a Cuisinart food processor to me. I hope the safety belt holding the pilot in place was well made.

Popular Science (Mechanics?) used to have ads urging people to buy the plans for a one-person flying device. The artwork of the ad depicted a person wearing these giant lift fans sticking out of their shoulders, perhaps each 3 feet in diameter. What could go wrong with that, right?
Giordano 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 1st May 2016, 11:07 AM   #95
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
Originally Posted by Didymus View Post
For example, see the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee (see Wikipedia) which first flew in 1957, The pilot stood on top of a 7 foot diameter ducted fan driven by three 44 hp piston engines.
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I was always fascinated by this concept- it seemed too much like the design of a Cuisinart food processor to me. I hope the safety belt holding the pilot in place was well made.

Popular Science (Mechanics?) used to have ads urging people to buy the plans for a one-person flying device. The artwork of the ad depicted a person wearing these giant lift fans sticking out of their shoulders, perhaps each 3 feet in diameter. What could go wrong with that, right?
See the "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" section


http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bensen_b-10.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle



The Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee looks *far* safer (and I am well aware that is a relative term)...

ETA: In the "what could go wrong section" - what could go wrong in putting your troops in lots of noisy, non-agile one man helicopters and flying them slowly over a battlefield whilst the enemy are in modified grouse butts with and tweed jackets in concealment?

ETA2:

This from wiki:
Quote:
An entirely new type of parachute with extremely fast opening characteristics, the "Ultra-Fast Opening Personnel Parachute Type XMP-2", was developed for use in testing of the HZ-1 and Hiller VZ-1 flying platforms. Designed for use from 0 to 50 miles per hour (0–80 km/h) and at altitudes as low as 25 feet (7.6 m), the XMP-2 proved to have insufficient reliability for use as a personnel parachute
That was developed for use with the craft pictured above. Not sure I'd like to bail out of that - with or without a parachute.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 1st May 2016 at 11:15 AM.
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 11:23 AM   #96
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
In this case there are 4 nozzle outlets in a gang. Would ground effect be related to the actual nozzle diameter or would the collective diameter of thrust increase the height of ground effect? As I said upthread I expect to learn something here, and I didnt know this about GE.

In any event, the flyboard launches and lands on a platform that appears to be openwork or mesh deck of some kind, presumably for this reason as well as preventing heat damage to ground surfaces.
Depends how much the gasses can escape .. but wait ! That reminded me of something.

Ground effect works, because when the wing is close to the ground, the increased pressure under the wing cannot escape fast enough .. and so the effectivity the wing increases. That's because wing works better if there is higher pressure under it.

But for nozzles, it's the opposite ! Nozzle works by accelerating gas .. and the gas is accelerated by the difference of pressures on both ends of the nozzle. So with increasing pressure near the nozzle end, the effectivity actually drops !

I even remember something about this being problem for using rocket engines on Venus.
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 1st May 2016, 11:24 AM   #97
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,679
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
See the "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" section


http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bensen_b-10.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...by_soldier.png

The Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee looks *far* safer (and I am well aware that is a relative term)...

ETA: In the "what could go wrong section" - what could go wrong in putting your troops in lots of noisy, non-agile one man helicopters and flying them slowly over a battlefield whilst the enemy are in modified grouse butts with and tweed jackets in concealment?

ETA2:

This from wiki:

That was developed for use with the craft pictured above. Not sure I'd like to bail out of that - with or without a parachute.
Do the opposing troops have to yell, "Pull!" before taking a shot?

I thought that by the end of the US Revolutionary War the benefits of staying low and behind cover were already well established. The high death rate even in armored, speeder, and better armed conventional helicopters in the Vietnam war also illustrated this.

I understand that some of these personal lift devices could never left ground effect, and that the handling characteristics were generally terrible (as you note).
Giordano 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 1st May 2016, 11:30 AM   #98
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
My hasty risk assessment for the flying Waring Blender pictured above is "not only no but hell no." Too many possible failure modes result in pilot attempting to impede the vehicle's upward thrust bodily.
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 1st May 2016, 11:40 AM   #99
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Do the opposing troops have to yell, "Pull!" before taking a shot?

I thought that by the end of the US Revolutionary War the benefits of staying low and behind cover were already well established. The high death rate even in armored, speeder, and better armed conventional helicopters in the Vietnam war also illustrated this.

I understand that some of these personal lift devices could never left ground effect, and that the handling characteristics were generally terrible (as you note).
I think that they should regard the opposing generals as their beaters, nothing so nouveau as a clay pigeon shoot.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 1st May 2016 at 11:42 AM.
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 11:47 AM   #100
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,149
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Do the opposing troops have to yell, "Pull!" before taking a shot?

I thought that by the end of the US Revolutionary War the benefits of staying low and behind cover were already well established. The high death rate even in armored, speeder, and better armed conventional helicopters in the Vietnam war also illustrated this.

I understand that some of these personal lift devices could never left ground effect, and that the handling characteristics were generally terrible (as you note).
Indeed

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
My hasty risk assessment for the flying Waring Blender pictured above is "not only no but hell no." Too many possible failure modes result in pilot attempting to impede the vehicle's upward thrust bodily.
Now add in the idea that someone is shooting at you and each soldier is a far larger target than someone who isn't strapped to a large blender that is doing its best at falling out of the sky.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 1st May 2016, 07:04 PM   #101
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Popular Science (Mechanics?) used to have ads urging people to buy the plans for a one-person flying device. The artwork of the ad depicted a person wearing these giant lift fans sticking out of their shoulders, perhaps each 3 feet in diameter. What could go wrong with that, right?
Mythbusters actually built one of those: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8zIfkMp08U

It never got off the ground.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M 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 2nd May 2016, 06:03 AM   #102
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,521
I have fond memories of Dick Tracy's "magnetic air car":

http://dicktracy.wikia.com/wiki/Air_Car
Bikewer 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 2nd May 2016, 06:52 AM   #103
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I predict these things will be in the x games in a year, and filming X games in two. And in 5 years will kill a dozen riders.

I totally want one.
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 2nd May 2016, 10:10 AM   #104
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,964
Well for sure this has 0 safety mechanisms. And don't forget the mentioned steep learning curve.

You see ? We can still bitch even if the thing is real.
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 2nd May 2016, 10:23 AM   #105
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,108
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Well the original video was fishy. It's ok to say 'we'll see about that' ..
According to the inventor, it was their goal to create something that people believed was fake:


"I was skeptical when I first saw it because of the way the video was edited, and because itís just a very unbelievable thing to look at. What was your reaction to the people calling "fake"?

I said that we achieved our goal. [Laughs] Because itís exactly what we tried to do. We covered every mechanical aspect. The plan when we decided to create the Flyboard Air, it was crazy hard because we wanted to make something extremely small, something that looks like a skateboard and not like a helicopter. It would be easy to build something that was like 2 meters and able to fly, it would be easy to do that. But our goal was to make something so small that people would believe itís a fake, or itís just an animation. And so when people said that, honestly, we are happy about that. We achieved our goal. Because when people see it in person, they will go crazy. Thatís cool."
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 2nd May 2016, 11:16 AM   #106
flook
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4
I have to admit you made my day with so many "evidences" that the FlyBoard Air is fake: video frames, harness, air intakes, pants not moving, computer generated wakes... :-D

It is so real that last Saturday Guiness World Records awarded them. Oh, maybe it was for the World's best video editing... :-D

I cannot insert links, just google flyboard air guiness

It has to feel REALLY ridiculous to demonstrate something is fake and it finally comes out being totally legit. You tell me... :-D

It someone here is really interested in learning about this ABSOLUTELY AMAZING machine, google h2ro flyboard air

Just some quick data:
- 1,000hp engine (yes, inside that tiny box and being REALLY light, some 20-25Kg all)
- Flight height up to 10,000 feet (right, 10k)
- Top Speed of 92mph (in the record just 35-40 or so)
- 10 minutes of autonomy

I know these guys (Zapata Racing) pretty well. They are not magicians or showbiz people. They are extraordinary talented and creative engineers devoted to create (very few) amazing devices, and then sell them. Whatever you see coming from them, put it in the whitelist, make you a favor.

By the way, expect military forces using the upcoming jetpack version of the Flyboard Air in one year or so.
flook 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 2nd May 2016, 03:05 PM   #107
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,699
Welcome flook. Have a link on me.

http://www.h2romagazine.com/flyboard-news/air-flyboard

1,000hp engine in 20-25Kg? How does that compare to a car engine?

Edit. Bonus site. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...-france-427011

The above link gives independent evidence that it is real.
__________________
This signature is for rent.

Last edited by rjh01; 2nd May 2016 at 03:11 PM.
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 2nd May 2016, 03:18 PM   #108
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I suspect 1000hp is part of the hype, not actual engineering.
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 2nd May 2016, 04:19 PM   #109
Prometheus
Acolyte of VŪūarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 49,383
Originally Posted by flook View Post
<snip>
It has to feel REALLY ridiculous to demonstrate something is fake and it finally comes out being totally legit. You tell me... :-D
<snip>
Nope. Skeptics love to be proven wrong. That's how we learn new stuff.

Welcome.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus 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 2nd May 2016, 04:43 PM   #110
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,539
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We had something that could fly along at 90mph for 10 minutes while carrying a human, all on about 1 liter of fuel 50 years ago? Link?
I know you have since revised your opinion on if it's real, but seriously, you need to learn what a litre is.

1 litre takes up a 10cm (4 inch) square cube. The back pack he is wearing looks similar to these ones, which contain 20 litres or a little over 5 US Gallons.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 2nd May 2016, 05:36 PM   #111
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,108
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I know you have since revised your opinion on if it's real, but seriously, you need to learn what a litre is.

1 litre takes up a 10cm (4 inch) square cube. The back pack he is wearing looks similar to these ones, which contain 20 litres or a little over 5 US Gallons.
I was slightly exaggerating the amount of fuel available as smaller, just as you are now exaggerating the size of the backpack as larger. Even five gallons wouldn't be enough for the 10 minutes claimed, but that backpack appears to me to be much smaller than the pictures you link.
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 2nd May 2016, 05:49 PM   #112
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,539
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I was slightly exaggerating the amount of fuel available as smaller, just as you are now exaggerating the size of the backpack as larger. Even five gallons wouldn't be enough for the 10 minutes claimed, but that backpack appears to me to be much smaller than the pictures you link.
Looking at the photos from the GWR site, it looks bigger to me, it is certainly longer down his back, and appears to be deeper. Even from the video I'd have estimated a capacity of at least 12-18 litres, looking at the photos I'd say that 24 or more is possible.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 3rd May 2016, 12:44 AM   #113
flook
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Welcome flook. Have a link on me.
Thank you rjh01

Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
1,000hp engine in 20-25Kg? How does that compare to a car engine?
Regular cars have some 70-120hp. Jetskis can push up on a 80kg person on a Flyboard from 100hp. The Flyboard Air has 4 independent engines of 250hp each. The REALLY amazing thing is to make them that small.

Here is a little gem very few people have seen: The very first flying attempt, with electric engines (seem to me), published one year ago and recorded one year earlier, at least. Please link it for me rjh01, YouTube video ID R00MVa6_ukc

Prometheus, I would definitely describe me as skeptic. I doubt of many things I see on the Internet, but I do not find evindences that they are fake when they are not. I don't think that is an skeptic attitude, but a different one.
flook 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 3rd May 2016, 01:19 AM   #114
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,699
Here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R00MVa6_ukc
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


How about going to humour or community and make 13 posts so that you can make links yourself?
__________________
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 3rd May 2016, 02:02 AM   #115
flook
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
How about going to humour or community and make 13 posts so that you can make links yourself?
Thank you rjh01, I will, I will... 0:-)

Last edited by flook; 3rd May 2016 at 02:09 AM.
flook 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 5th June 2016, 01:00 PM   #116
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,130
4 reasons why the FLYBOARD AIR is a HOAX

Dear Forum.

I am a new member here, so go easy on me!

I would like to point out to mods that I am not trolling here.

The last and only forum i posted this video to, i got accused of trolling, my thread deleted, and i got banned without trial.

The reason given was 'Guinness book of records has proven it true'.

As a skeptic, i believe we have to examine INCONSISTENCIES in order to approach the truth.

Therefore just because something is endorsed by Guinness does not mean we should ignore other suspicious details regarding an event or story.
And it does not mean inquiring minds should stop inquiring

With that in mind, Here is the video - I look forward to you response.

This 2 minute video only explores the inconsistencies. The Achilles heel of the Flyboard Air, IMO.

AS A NEW MEMEBER I CAN NOT POST LINKS,
The video can be found by searching youtube for "4 reasons why the FLYBOARD AIR is a HOAX "


Summary of points in the video :

- The editing on the Flyboard Air films is very poor - why?.
- There is a HUGE lack of third part independent footage of any kind.
- Drone footage is passed off as the pilots - proving dishonesty has taken place.
- Low video resolutions - something which is unlikely in this day and age.

Thanks for viewing my first ever thread here.

Last edited by esspee; 5th June 2016 at 01:02 PM.
esspee 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 5th June 2016, 01:12 PM   #117
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
zapata-racing.com/flyboardair-en/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM

It claims to have multiple kerosene fueled jet turbines, which may be powerful enough to lift a person. Because they're turbines, they have gyroscopic stabilization. Smaller turbines on the outside for turning. I might be able to accept the physical possibility.

I can't accept that the only thing keeping him on it is his own balance. He's just standing on the thing. Even with boot straps, you hit a bad gust on a turn and you're flipping over.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Last edited by ehcks; 5th June 2016 at 01:14 PM.
ehcks 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 5th June 2016, 01:27 PM   #118
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,130
in reply to EHCKS




THe water based flyboard has the advantage of a lower center of gravity and stabilisation due to the hose filled with water.
Not only is this water filled hose heavy with all the water in it, lowering the centre of gravity, but it is also a kind of tether, and adds to the overall mass of the contraption being controlled.

The flyboard air does not have this luxury.

I agree that the necessary thrust is possible with 4 minature jet-cats, but the controlling of them seems very far fetched to me. I think it would be very unstable.


In the future i believe this kind off tech will be a thing. But not sure about right now.

Other claims made for the flyboard air are clearly false. Such as the ability to go to 10,000ft.
And those electric ducted fans on the side of the unit are very close to the rotational centre of the device.

I don't see how they would be of any use in rotating an adult man, unless they were very far out and took advantage of leverage.
Even then, i don't see how they would be very effective. THese kind of fans, of the size on this device, do not give out much power, judging by all of the videos I have watched of them recently
esspee 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 5th June 2016, 01:58 PM   #119
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,691
Esspee, next time you might try the 'search' function, to see if we already have a thread on it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...light=flyboard

And , as a newbie, you can get a bit creative and post links- like "isf dot com " would tel us where to go. The a poater will make a better link for you.

Welcome aboard!
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro 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 5th June 2016, 02:02 PM   #120
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,130
reply to casebro

I know about that thread.

That is the thread that brought me here in the first place a few weeks ago.

However this thread is about footage, and new footage that has come to light in the last few days.

I believe this new post in regards to new footage of a supposedly new public FLyboard Air event ( for which only video exists, no other record of it anywhere else online) deserves its own thread.

Last edited by esspee; 5th June 2016 at 02:04 PM.
esspee 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 08:40 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.