Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jet Pack Runs For Hours On Water

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the got-your-back dept.

Transportation 268

Ponca City, We love you writes "Jet packs have been around for half a century, but there's always been one problem: they run out of fuel in around 30 seconds. Now a German company has taken the standard jet pack design, run a fat yellow hose out the back, and connected it to a small unmanned boat that houses an engine, pump, and fuel tank and sends pressurized water up the hose, where it's shot out by two nozzles just behind the wearer's shoulders. Called the JetLev-Flyer, the design purportedly can reach a height of 15 meters, a speed of 72 kph, and a range of 300 kilometers based on four hours of flying time. A digital fly-by-wire system is used to control the throttle. Future designs may achieve higher altitudes, higher top speeds, and extended range, and even travel below the water's surface. The American manufacturers claim it is 'amazingly easy to learn and operate' and they're taking orders now at $130,000 each."

cancel ×

268 comments

Brilliant idea (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884241)

Till the hose snaps and you plummet 15 meters into your water-dinghy.

Why not try less expensive cheap thrills like sniffing glue or sticking a bottle rocket up your ass and lighting the fuse?

are you crazy? (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884247)

and a range of 300 kilometers based on four hours of flying time.

      But based on the actual length of the hose, the range is more like 100 feet.

Re:are you crazy? (4, Insightful)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884285)

The boat is towed along behind the jetpack, so the range is correct, if you are only flying above water :)Which limits the practicality in my mind. If however they can engineer them to work underwater, with a longer hose like those used on old diving suits, then I can see this having a purpose, i.e faster descent times and time spent examining shipwrecks etc.

Re:are you crazy? (4, Informative)

ToadMan8 (521480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885103)

lol; I think they mean the boat / pump thing will be underwater, not the jetpack. Divers are limited by physiological things when ascending and descending, not how fast they can swim. SCUBA certification organizations will tell you one foot per second up and down is about the limit. They already have underwater propulsion things (little units you hang on to that you point in the direction you want to go, and they run of batteries) to combat currents, long distance requirements, etc. that are about as good as required.

Re:are you crazy? (2)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885199)

The boat is towed along behind the jetpack, so the range is correct, if you are only flying above water :)Which limits the practicality in my mind.

You're right. It's unlike all the other inventions that have no limit to their practicality.

Re:are you crazy? (4, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885415)

This seems more of a limit on a jetpack than I'd be willing to accept. I mean, cruising along 100 feet over the ground (Well, the water) is fine until you hit a dock, or accidentally go over land. Then you've got 100 feet of free-fall.

As a bonus, you're almost guaranteed for this thing to ONLY fail when you're NOT over water, eliminating the only chance you have of surviving that big of a fall.

but... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885473)

But at least it is compatible with over 70% of the earth's surface

Re:are you crazy? (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884313)

It reminds me of the electric car I invented - the one with the really really long extension cord.

Re:are you crazy? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884845)

I think this is more like a car with a regular extension cord and a gasoline generator though.

Re:are you crazy? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885015)

No this would be like the electric car you invented with an extension cord to a gas generator being towed behind you.

Nathan

Re:are you crazy? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885269)

Under limited circumstances, that scheme can actually make some sense. The usual motivation for going hybrid, rather than electric, is that electric offers very limited range. Unfortunately, the gas engine adds weight. So, if you make the engine a modular extra, you can accept the added weight for long range use, and leave it in the garage for short runs about town.

It isn't clear that it is practical enough to overcome the inconvenience and oddity of the scheme; but it isn't pure nonsense.

Dollars are cheaper than pouns! (-1, Redundant)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884249)

So the price isn't $130,000, but almost $230,000.

Re:Dollars are cheaper than pouns! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884343)

Yeah, the prices are off. TFA states 160k pounds which would be 170k euros. The second link states 100k euros (130k dollars). The actual website [jetlev-flyer.com] of the product (followed a link from the second article) states 100k or 120k euros depending on how powerful machine you want.

Re:Dollars are cheaper than pouns! (4, Informative)

andy.ruddock (821066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884349)

The web site advertises two models :

155 HP = EUR 99,000 which is $125,116 (£88,122)
215 HP = EUR 119,000 which is $150,392 (£105,924)

so the Telegraph has the prices wrong.

(Exchange rates courtesy of Google)

Re:Dollars are cheaper than pouns! (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885377)

+ VAT / sales tax whatever..

old and wrong, typical kdawson (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884261)

can kdawson actually read? the jetpack itself has a range limited by the hose. 300 miles my ass you moron. of and this shit is OLD OLD OLD OLD news.

Re:old and wrong, typical kdawson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884471)

In the last post by kdawson, someone quit slashdot.
Now I think it's my turn.

Re:old and wrong, typical kdawson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884621)

Don't do that! If you quit Slashdot how will I use your unpassworded account to post anonymously?

So it doesn't run on water at all? (4, Informative)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884265)

It actually runs on whatever powers the engine that drives the pump.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884381)

Indeed. Really revolutionary isn't it? A mechanical device working through combustion. Alert CNN immediately!

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (5, Funny)

Overkill Nbuta (1035654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884485)

The real question should be. Does it run Linux.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885159)

Of course. Naturally, it can run NetBSD. :)

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (1)

maxwells daemon (105725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884651)

More than likely that it runs on beer.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (2, Funny)

Overkill Nbuta (1035654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884847)

More than likely that it runs on beer.

I'm pretty sure i can run Linux on beer also. Just my efficiency goes down.... or up depending on the task.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885373)

Could easily use beer as the thrust media, if the support boat was a Budweiser tanker.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (3, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885453)

Could easily use beer as the thrust media, if the support boat was a Budweiser tanker.

... after all, it runs on water.

Look up a guy in Orange County, California. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885087)

His name is Gregory Thomas I think. He had made prototype equipment that could be used among many things a jetpack, using a 1 gallon water jug in capacity to circuitry and copper pipe with valves and harnesses backmounted less than 20 pounds. The water was split into 2Hydrogen and 1Oxygen at an efficiency calculated for over 10 hours of turbine thrust per 400 pounds (IIRC).

This article can't hold a candle to some of the things those Royal Raymond Rife experiments are turning out to be. I for one welcome our flying amish overlords.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (2, Funny)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885161)

Yeah, typical /. headline: so misleading that you have to read the article to figure out what they're talking about, and 90% of the discussion is focused on either annoyance about or misapprehension of the false headline.

There's a story below that has a headline about the odds of finding an Earth-like planet within a few dozen lightyears of Earth, but I'm pretty sure the actual story is about a new way to bake pastry. With a /. headline, why would anyone assume otherwise?

A range of 300 km? (5, Insightful)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884287)

I assume this is dragging the boat after you.

What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?

Re:A range of 300 km? (2, Funny)

Demoriel (1478317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884317)

You pretty much just nailed why this is a totally useless design.

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884361)

But possibly fun - although it's a lot to pay for some fun.

Re:A range of 300 km? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884411)

but so is a boat, how much does a 72kmph boat cost?

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884457)

A quick google search found one for just over $31,000 - I'm sure you could do better.

This "jet-pack" is the sort of thing I could see being used to hire out at the beach for 5-10 min trips, just for the ride. Obviously this would depend upon training time and you'd need to tether it, to prevent it being stolen - which rather defeats the purpose of the thing.

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884451)

No. It comes with a REALLY long hose.

And don't forget, it can also be used as a pressure-washer!

YouTube Video (5, Insightful)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884525)

YouTube video [youtube.com]

Most people are missing the point of this. It isn't a sensible solution, it is a FUN solution. I would love to have a go.

Re:YouTube Video (1)

Caue (909322) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884547)

yeah, I already have. But my "jetpack" would run on wind, and it was bigger and colorfull. And it was made with no parts whatsoever, just plain fabric and ropes! I even said "I can see my house from up here!" giggling and pointing randomly towards the horizon.

Re:YouTube Video (0, Flamebait)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885171)

Most people are missing the point of this.

I wonder if the headline being a typically stupid /. falsehood might have something to with that.

Re:YouTube Video (2, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885433)

I can think of many more ways that would be quite a bit more fun then spending $130k on this. But hey, if you have the money to blow on it, more power to ya.

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884697)

I would presume that it will be mostly used by as a theme park / tourist attraction / eXtreme sports thing. The $200k will be nothing compared to the wages, operating expenses, free t-shirts, and public liability insurance.

Re:A range of 300 km? (2, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884699)

What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?

Is your boat 15 meters tall? You get a higher view, which has many uses.

Re:A range of 300 km? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885021)

Is your boat 15 meters tall?

Yes.

Re:A range of 300 km? (3, Insightful)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884903)

Same goes for water skiing and parascending... The point is, its fun!

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884949)

You can't fly a boat along the shoreline and ruin family picnics.

Re:A range of 300 km? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885431)

I assume this is dragging the boat after you.

What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?

Ever see a parasailer? Like that, but for people who enjoy spraying mass quantities of water on whatever is below them.

Really stretching now, could be used from the deck of a ship to quickly access overhead unloading cranes... if attached to a submarine it could potentially be used for personnel transfer to helicopters... ummm... I think it's just slightly more useful than the jet-pack James Bond used in Thunderball.

I'd call this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884291)

vapourware, except this is liquid water, not gaseous, and plus, it's been created.

Missing the point of a jet pack. (3, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884299)

... that is, not to have any wires or hoses connecting it to something else on the ground or in the air. Duh.

Seriously, these guys take some sort of high-output water pump and call it a jet pack?

Re:Missing the point of a jet pack. (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884581)

Exactly. So, it's not a "Jet Pack", so much as a "Fire Pump", and it doesn't "Run For Hours on Water", it "Runs For Hours On Petrol".

Name: this is a JET CART (2, Informative)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884719)

As many others have pointed out, the name "jet pack" conveys entirely the wrong meaning. Jet packs are by implication untethered, with the "pack" containing everything required by the jet. So we need a more appropriate name to convey that the pack is tethered, and that the jet is pulling something on the end of its tether along.

Well the answer is obvious: this is a JET CART, because the jet takes the place of a horse and is pulling the cart (boat) along. Naturally the horse is tethered to the cart, and it can't get any further from the cart than the length of its tether (pipe) --- the name conveys the right meaning exactly.

With a bit of flexibility from readers, this could even be taken as a car analogy. ;-)

round and round (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884301)

I doubt how anything that makes you spin 300 km of circles around a fixed point in the water (and probably vomiting every now and then) is going to make you look cool.

SUPER MARIO SUNSHINE, YAAAAYY!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884369)

I'm gonna start working on my triple jump

Mario Sunshine ref. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884371)

"Hello i am FUD. I am a jetpack that runs on gasoline from the 150 horse power engine that is connected to me from a tube.Pleasure to meet you"

Worms (2, Funny)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884391)

FTFS:

> but there's always been one problem: they run out of fuel in around 30 seconds

But that's what made them fun in the game :)

Disappointing. (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884407)

And here is was, thinking that they had an actual jet pack. But this ... this is just a useless toy. Hey - when I want to fly around in the city, a *hose* isn't exactly practical.

But this leads to some inherent problems with jetpacks and flying cars: fuel problems aside, these things would be *hard* to pilot. Just think about it - you're flying around with your shiny jetpack, at what, 150mph? Imagine the accidents that could happen, or the amount of skill necessary to remain in control of that thing. Same for flying cars. Just look at the number of *regular* car accidents. Adding an extra degree of freedom will not exactly lower down that number.

Re:Disappointing. (2, Insightful)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884545)

Same for flying cars. Just look at the number of *regular* car accidents. Adding an extra degree of freedom will not exactly lower down that number.

It looked fine in Back to the Future Part 2. How hard could it be? They had floating lane dividers and everything. The only problem I can see is that it will add a whole new dimension to being "double-parked".

Re:Disappointing. (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884691)

It looked fine in Back to the Future Part 2. How hard could it be? They had floating lane dividers and everything. The only problem I can see is that it will add a whole new dimension to being "double-parked".

you surely mean quadruple parked?

Re:Disappointing. (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884863)

Hey don't be so disappointed, it sounds like a _lot_ of fun!

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884967)

People have enough trouble driving in just two dimensions.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885303)

I think the whole "control" thing is what makes it a flying car as opposed to a plane.

You can already fly around the city at 150mph if you wanted to(and can get whatever permits are required) in a plane. Planes aren't even all that fuel inefficient.

The idea of a flying car is a vehicle that is as easy to control as a car(or easier), but which can fly. This is of course theoretically possible, but the lift system and power generation equipment has yet to be invented.

Cool but expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884419)

I know this is Slashdot and you're not supposed to actually read the articles and such before you post, but most of you seem to have missed the point. The hose doesn't "run out"... it only limits your height (8.5m, which is really quite high). This is as close as you'll get to a "Jet-pack" that can actually fly for any length of time.

There's only really two limits:
1) Height is maxed at hose length (30 yards/8.5m)
2) You have to fly over water only

Now, the second item is a bit restrictive, indeed... but a Jet-pack in any form as we know science today isn't really going to be a means of practical transportation. They are too big, too heavy, and have to many restrictions (flight time, etc). Comparing it to a boat is kind of stupid. This is about the feeling of free flying, and having fun, of course. Expensive, sure, but lots of things are.

As far as transportation goes... this is the first "Jet-pack" to really me usable as such, albeit only from getting in from your summoner cottage on an island to the main land for picking up some small items, like a newspaper and some milk, and then back again. That is, provided there's something very close to the beach. :)

Military and coastguard applications (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884423)

One of the earliest uses for balloons and large kites was to tow an elevated observer behind a ship. I guess navies will be extremely interested in this. It's much less visible than a helicopter, cheaper, and safer, yet it permits over-the-horizon observation. Think of pirates off Somalia. Currently they can easily see and avoid ships, but fast patrol boats can't see them beyond a few miles. With one of these a small intercept craft can see the pirates, while remaining almost invisible themselves. Think of it as a floating artillery OP and the uses are obvious.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884491)

Just make sure not to fly it over the boat.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884523)

Actually, no. You have the means mixed up with the purpose. The intended use for the balloons and the kites was to get them the f*** up in the air so that the people in them could make observations. Towing them behind ships was simply a means to do that.

This thing only goes up 50' high. Not very useful for observational purposes.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (2, Informative)

BenihanaX (1405543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884539)

There are much easier ways to do this than pumping water 50 feet in the air, like say... a camera on a balloon? The only ships going after pirates are sufficiently large enough to carry a mast or helo with enough range that another 50 feet vertical wouldn't change.

As a general reply to the other comments (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884839)

In your case, you appear not to have understood the Somali problem - the use of small high speed RIBs that can outrun a ship, and will see the fixed mast of a ship at a range that makes it useless for pursuit. You need similar pursuit craft that can quickly put up a mobile OP, and as quickly drop it to avoid observation. Helicopters are expensive to run, probably just too expensive for anti-piracy, balloons cannot be deployed quickly and are themselves higher than the observation point so they can be detected before they detect you. And there is no way a ROV is as good as a human observer in this kind of application, not to mention the problems of controlling it from a RIB at speed - ever been on one of those things?

I guess nobody responding to this post actually knows a damn thing about real world conditions. Fifteen metres above sea level enormously expands your range of vision. Ask any sailor.

Re:As a general reply to the other comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885035)

In your case, you appear not to have understood the Somali problem - the use of small high speed RIBs that can outrun a ship, and will see the fixed mast of a ship at a range that makes it useless for pursuit. You need similar pursuit craft that can quickly put up a mobile OP, and as quickly drop it to avoid observation. Helicopters are expensive to run, probably just too expensive for anti-piracy, balloons cannot be deployed quickly and are themselves higher than the observation point so they can be detected before they detect you. And there is no way a ROV is as good as a human observer in this kind of application, not to mention the problems of controlling it from a RIB at speed - ever been on one of those things?

I guess nobody responding to this post actually knows a damn thing about real world conditions. Fifteen metres above sea level enormously expands your range of vision. Ask any sailor.

it's not piracy it's copyright infringeme.. wait what?

Re:As a general reply to the other comments (1)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885299)

So put a camera on top of a telescopic rod.

Better, cheaper and safer than a hosepipe with a person strapped to it traveling at 200kph on a boat.

Someone might enhance it somehow to increase range and height potentially making a rescue platform more flexible and deployable than a conventional firetruck.

-Tim

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884639)

You're wrong because these days they can just use a quadrocopter or some other convenient ROV form factor and it would be a lot cheaper and more functional. It could be a great means of propelling subaquatic ROVs, though.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884683)

That makes no sense at all. Modern military operations would use any number of UAV systems, or aero-foil balloons (which are in fact a type of UAV). All of which are infinitely more practical than this jet pack.

Hell, I've got an RC turbine plane with a 2 megapixel camera in it. It would be easy to launch from a boat, and several orders of magnitude more appropriate for forward observation use. It's faster, flies higher and infinitely more disposable than the jet pack, and human pilot. It's range is largely limited by the radio gear, which can be mitigate a lot with military grade gear.

In short, for less than 2000$ I built a better artillery OP than anything this jetpack can offer.

The only use this jetpack has is Xsports and toys for rich people that like thrill seeking.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

BenihanaX (1405543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884721)

It's range is largely limited by the radio gear, which can be mitigate a lot with military grade gear.

I'm not sure you know the meaning of "military grade."

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884747)

I think its going to be easier to put launch a balloon and a robotic camera than it will be to put someone up on a jet propelled hose pipe to look over the horizon.

If I am correct, an observer standing at see level can only see 8 miles before the horizon disappears. The higher up you are the more you get to see.

-Tim

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884977)

Unmaned aircraft with a transmitting camera are cheaper, have long time in the air, have higher range and are not afraid of the shore.
This thing is for entertainment purposes only.

Re:Military and coastguard applications (1)

Nyckname (240456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885089)

And the advantage to this over a drone is?

Coast Guard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884447)

There's certainly useful applications for this. I could envision the Coast Guard using something like that to fill in where helicopters might be more expensive or cumbersome. Rescue access anyone?

You COULD add even more jets to it for a formidable firefighting platform!

Re:Coast Guard? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884543)

You COULD add even more jets to it for a formidable firefighting platform!

Yeah you know how it can be difficult for fire fighters to stand still when holding a hose? Thats a feature, not a bug.

SHINE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884461)

Man, you are going to be able to collect loads of coins with that thing.
And at that price, it should come with a free holiday to Isle Delfino.

This is a joke, right? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884497)

It can't go anywhere a boat can't go. It can't go faster than a boat. It has no more range than a boat. But it carries significantly more danger than most boats ever did. It can go up as high as -- oh my gosh -- 15m... around 50 feet. And it has no payload capacity whatsoever.

So... what's it going to be used for? Rescuing cats from trees along the river?

Re:This is a joke, right? (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884531)

So... what's it going to be used for? Rescuing cats from trees along the river?

Basically the same use case as a parasail towed behind a ski boat. They are a lot of fun, actually.

Comments totally missing point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884537)

If this is useless then so are waterskis, wakeboards, kiteboards, surfboards and etc. for they can not go anywhere a simple boat can not go. Yet many people buy and use those. Go figure...

Slow news day (1)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884587)

Water is heavy stuff - you don't have to expel much of it at a mediocre velocity in order to support the weight of a adult human.

What made those portable jetpacks interesting is that they used a limited amount of reaction mass and managed to expel it with sufficient velocity that it was able to support the weight of the pilot+jetpack.

Personally, I would be satisfied to see a solution based upon small jet turbines with vectored thrust. In some ways, it would be more tricky to make stable due to the response lag on controlling the jet engine's thrust and that the exhaust output cannot typically be considered as a point thrust. If made to work, I'd imagine that hovering/flying time in the order of several tens of minutes would be feasible.

This water jet thing is just *yawn* by comparison.

Perpetual motion (1, Troll)

BenihanaX (1405543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884727)

In other news, a perpetual motion machine was built, it requires a 120 volt power source and runs indefinitely.

youtube comment (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884739)

here is one person's reaction after watching a jetpack hover over water:

lol omg i want tht soooo badly ima get it once i turn rich lol

its amazing what sorts of crap people can write with a keyboard. my head will implode if i read another line like this.

Re:youtube comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885297)

lol pmsl

You are invited... (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884771)

to take a ride on the Firehose.

Team sports (4, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884777)

This sounds like a recreational device, and perhaps an interesting one. Calling it a "James Bond-style jet pack" is rather misleading, though.

Safety: a fall into water from that height is not safe but not suicidal. I wonder how bad it is to be underneath and accidentally get sprayed by one of those jets? The video clip is silent; I'll bet the thing makes a hell of a racket. I wonder how many waterfronts will put up with it.

I'm thinking, team sports. An extreme kind of polo or soccer or something. With players deliberately maneuvering to hit each other with the jets and/or tangle their hoses.

Re:Team sports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885181)

How are you going to play 'soccer' when you're 15m off the ground. Have you ever played football? You're NOT ALLOWED TO PICK UP THE BALL. You have to use your feet, hence the name.

Maybe American football or Rugby (where you can carry the ball) might work. I think you'd have a better chance trying to play basketball than 'soccer' as you call it.

Re:Team sports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885233)

Safety: a fall into water from that height is not safe but not suicidal.

It's not just the height of the fall. You're also falling with 50 pounds (or whatever) of metal attached to your spine.

Imagine if one of the jet nozzles clogged or for whatever reason you ended up sideways or upside down. Hehe, I bet that would be real fun.

Still, that probably wouldn't stop me from trying it.

Just another... (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884785)

...idiotic contraption to make noise, and spoil the serenity of my local lake. Fricking manufacturers should be stopped from producing these things that serve no purpose other than to encourage stupid people to waste their money.

The same retards buy 500 hp speedboats to drive at 60 miles an hour on a mile long lake. Shit-for-brains people like that should be buried young.

Re:Just another... (1)

eddy_crim (216272) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885255)

ALSo... get of my lawn!

Not a jet pack (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884791)

I struggle to see this as a jet pack. It's more a small boat with a very strange propulsion system. Having said that I wouldn't mind having a go.

How to Annoy People, Vol. I (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26884895)

This would be a fantastic device for annoying the shit out of anyone hanging out on a dock or outside their house that's on the lake.

Just imagine Norm and Agnes, outside on the deck, enjoying a quiet cup of tea when suddenly... what on earth is that?

VVVRRRROOOOMMMMM! You show up, 30 ft. in the like a supersoaker from hell and hover over them, pounding them into the deck with your aerial twin water cannons.

Move over jet-skis, there's a new douchebag in town!

Runs on water? (2, Funny)

jamesswift (1184223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26884917)

I have a crane that runs on gravity!

The hose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26885069)

How much lift do you think that giant hose with pressurized water is adding?

Firetruck? (3, Insightful)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885315)

Is this going to replace/augment the firetruck with a more flexible and maneuverable rescue platform?

Who says that it needs to be connected to a boat.

Too dangerous if it fails (1)

ghostlibrary (450718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885337)

Oh, sure, it sounds good, but what if the hoses rupture while you're being towed over the ocean-- that's straight water pouring out, at tens of gallons per second! It'll get all over everything! And what are the people running it going to do then, when there's suddenly water all around them? Float? Didn't anyone think this through?

This does sound seriously fun... and smart too. Shades of Armadillo's EPA visit for their earlier hydrogen peroxide rocket, paraphased "what do you do if there's a fuel spill" 'We run away!' "That's not acceptable containment of contaminents!!" 'Sure it is, it'll turn to water and air' "Oh, cool!"

***
want some astronomy? http://scientificblogging.com/sky_day/ [scientificblogging.com]

Yeah, no. (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26885475)

This is not a jetpack. It is a device for riding a firehose.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...