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!

Tethered, Water-Powered Jetpack Provides Two Hours of Flight Time

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the fun-on-the-lake dept.

Transportation 170

arshadk writes "Unlike 'ordinary' jetpacks, the JetLev is actually two vehicles, tethered by a hose the thickness of your thigh. On the water is a small speedboat-like unit which contains a 250 horsepower motor and a pump. This is connected to the pack — into which you strap your frail body — by a 10-meter hose. The water is pumped from the sea or lake below up to the nozzles on the jetpack, providing a 1,900-Newton thrust, enough to lift a human weighing up to 150 kilos."

cancel ×

170 comments

WE'RE SCIENCE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117084)

We're all about COULDA - not SHOULDA.

Re:WE'RE SCIENCE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117094)

wtf

Re:WE'RE SCIENCE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117122)

fucking faggot fuck never heard patton oswalt - fuck you faggot fuck. Set yourself on fire. Now.

Re:WE'RE SCIENCE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117170)

wtf
(This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...)

That hose... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117090)

is as thick as my big fat NIGGER COCK!!!

Re:That hose... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117208)

Hey mom, look it's a funny nigger cock troll ! Suck my mutated 3-ball yellow asian scrotum.

Fire hose (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117098)

This is like hanging onto a firehose.

Re:Fire hose (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118144)

Exactly what I thought. The background music was also well selected as it sounds like something from a cruise line/vacation spot advertisement. This is the new Parasailing.

useless (1, Offtopic)

MorpheusNOR (1291444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117132)

Most useless invention ever...

Re:useless (2)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117230)

Oh come on. Maybe it doesn't make anything, but it does seem like a relatively cheap and safe way to live out childhood fantasies.

Re:useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117954)

Oh come on. Maybe it doesn't make anything, but it does seem like a relatively cheap and safe way to live out childhood fantasies.

Ya, well that's what the first guys to do this said too. They scrapped the whole project because a) a tether of any sort makes this fairly useless and b) a 10 meter tether makes it entirely useless.

I have a hard time seeing a 10 meter radius as being much fun to "jet around" in, although I suppose if the vessel could "tow" you along behind it, it might make for a rather interesting water/air skiing type of sport. But I have a feeling that it doesn't have enough thrust to counter the downward force when the speeboat gets moving along, so it'd probably just pull you down to the surface. So if we combined it with one of the human-powered hydroplane "bike" things it might make for a good time, provided of course there is enough booze on hand.

But there really isn't anything serious to be done with this. And it's not a jetpack. Call me up when you've got a self-contained unit that can do at least 100 foot off the ground for a couple hours with a load of at least 350 pounds.

Re:useless (2)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118406)

Its the other way around. Think like a canister vacuum cleaner, you tow the vessel. The article says 35MPH for 2 hours if you wanted.

Re:useless (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117276)

May be good for hanging up those Christmas decorations in style, instead of relying on ladders.

Re:useless (2)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117378)

I prefer my Christmas decorations nailed to a cross.

Re:useless (1)

mickwd (196449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117930)

Most useless invention ever...

...if you have a shitty, boring life and your determined it stays that way.

Re:useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117996)

Most useless comment ever...

Rebellion against the Javascript Floaters (1, Offtopic)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117138)

I liked to leave Javascript enabled by default, I really did. But the appearance of things like the floater on this page, and the sneaker adds that lurk at the bottom, randomly springing up... it's too much. Javascript across the web is now whitelisted for me.

Re:Rebellion against the Javascript Floaters (0, Flamebait)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117668)

Bump on that bro. Thanks, didn't even occur to me to disable js. Nice uid btw. You must remember the old days with low five digits.

Anyone hoping the guy would run out in mid air? (2)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117152)

Maybe it's the American in me, but I was hoping to see the jet pack fail in mid flight as the guy takes a Red Bull flight contest dive.

Re:Anyone hoping the guy would run out in mid air? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117418)

Maybe it's the American in me

You might try telling him you've agreed to a democractic process for choosing your breakfast and ask him to leave.

Re:Anyone hoping the guy would run out in mid air? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117492)

Don't worry, it has nothing to do with being American. Just generic retardation.

Re:Anyone hoping the guy would run out in mid air? (2, Funny)

websaber (578887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118024)

"human weighing up to 150 kilos" You have to wait until they come out with the American version.

could it be scaled up (1, Interesting)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117158)

ive always wondered if this sort of thing could be scaled up to pump high pressure hydrogen or oxygen up a hose attached to a rocket as its taking off for the first 10-20 km of its flight. or maybe a superconducting cable, or just pressured air for extra thrust. then the hose breaks away, and splashes down in the ocean

Re:could it be scaled up (4, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117186)

You're then pulling along a 20km hose behind your rocket, and that hose has to be strong enough to support its own weight. You're going to add more weight than you're subtracting.

Unless you built a 20km tall tower that the hose hangs down from and as the rocket ascends you retract the hose so the rocket doesn't have to carry the slack. But then you have to build a 20km tall tower that can hold an enormous amount of hose (still sturdy enough to be 20km long) and the weight of the fuel item you're moving, and since that weight is going to be on one side of the tower you'd have to counterbalance it on the other side. Tricky.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117240)

But then you have to build a 20km tall tower that can hold an enormous amount of hose (still sturdy enough to be 20km long) and the weight of the fuel item you're moving, and since that weight is going to be on one side of the tower you'd have to counterbalance it on the other side. Tricky.

If you build it high enough, then you can just toss the satellite of the roof to get it into orbit. Didn't I read something about this idea in the Bible? The Tower of Babel?

Oh, yeah, that kinda sorta fell down. But with modern nanotube technology, maybe we can work something out?

Re:could it be scaled up (2)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117258)

If you build it high enough, then you can just toss the satellite of the roof to get it into orbit.

Orbit is about velocity, not altitude. You would have to "toss" it at orbital velocity, otherwise it would just drop...

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117310)

while true in practice for a 20 km tower, your observation is not technically correct. For a long enough tower (too lazy to compute now, but much larger than the distance Earth-Moon), the velocity given by a normal human toss would be enough.
you're in orbit if you have the right combination of velocity and potential energy (the momentum also gives the kinetic energy), not just if you have the right velocity. Also note that you need the right orientation for that velocity.

Space elevator (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117324)

For a long enough tower (too lazy to compute now, but much larger than the distance Earth-Moon), the velocity given by a normal human toss would be enough

Much lower than that, it's geostationary altitude.

Re:Space elevator (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117598)

you're right, obviously. I forgot the tower would be spinning with the Earth's surface.

Re:could it be scaled up (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117318)

At certain heights, "orbital velocity" is zero speed delta relative to the ground.
Geosynchronous orbit, for instance... If you go higher, then you need more speed, but in "reverse".

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117386)

Aaaand... parts of the tower will be pulled up more which should make the tower relatively easier to keep up.

Re:could it be scaled up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117322)

Orbit is about velocity, not altitude. You would have to "toss" it at orbital velocity, otherwise it would just drop...

Velocity relative to what? A geostationary sattelite is motionless relative to the ground, which is exactly the same velocity as the top of your tower would have.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117474)

except if it's windy, or if everyone suddenly runs to one side.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117916)

Velocity relative to a non rotating frame of reference centered on the center of mass of the body being orbited.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117532)

Not true if you have a 36,000 km tall tower -> geostationary orbit, taller than that you actually need to slow the object down so it would stay in orbit.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

tgeller (10260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118006)

This is what I love about technologists. "All we need is a 22-mile-high tower...". :)

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118206)

Note: a 22,000 miles tower would actually be needed to achieve what I describe, 22 miles wouldn't do it.

Then again, you could always use a geostationary satellite with a large mass and attach a rope to it instead of building a tower and make other satellites to be launched climb up that rope instead.

Build up the mass of the pulling satellite slowly, in many operations ($$$). Take pieces of that rope gradually to the pulling satellite and have space welders assemble it in the way back to Earth.

The nice thing is there is no "you need to support the weight of the rope" non-sense because with centripetal forces, it all equates out and the rope doesn't have to support its own weight. Note to myself: I need to QA this with regards to what happens in the the close to Earth part of the rope, forces might not be applied in a linear fashion after all but still...

Does that remind you some movie were they had a space elevator ? ;-)

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118216)

Erm ... that's 22 THOUSAND miles!

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117354)

20km is 140km short of low earth orbit. Though you'd have to talk to someone with more structural engineering knowledge than I have to know how impractical a 20km tall tower is this week. And someone with more rocket science knowledge to tell you if this scheme of whatever quantity of fuel this would offload is of any benefit at all.

As for nanotubes, it's my understanding that they have excellent tensile strength but poor compressive strength, making them useful for a "hanging" space elevator but useless for a very tall tower.

Re:could it be scaled up (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117686)

Didn't I read something about this idea in the Bible? The Tower of Babel? Oh, yeah, that kinda sorta fell down.

Kinda sorta never existed is more accurate.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118122)

Kinda sorta never existed is more accurate.

Even readers of Snow Crash know that there is historical precedent for the existence of a tower of babel. I'm getting the idea that this Jehovah guy was just some amazing badass with lost alien technology who wanted to rule the world. I mean, where did all that stuff from the Vedas come from anyway? It's 2011, where is my sky chariot!@#~!

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117414)

Ah, Slashdot!: Where no creative idea is too good to be voiced without being shot down by a dozen technical objections before it can even take flight.

The OP's idea is speculative, but could be a good way of saving fuel in the first few seconds of rocket flight. But if the general community of engineers has the kind of attitude on display around here, I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.

If this place had been around in earlier years, I doubt space flight, microwave ovens or integrated circuits would have ever been created in the face of a tsunami of derision and pedantic objection from the armchair engineers in the peanut gallery.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117490)

The OP's idea is speculative, but could be a good way of saving fuel in the first few seconds of rocket flight. But if the general community of engineers has the kind of attitude on display around here, I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.

No need to bother with the numbers. That is optimizing the, by far, cheapest part of a spacecraft flight by a very small percentage indeed at a staggering capital cost. Its merely pointless.

The other "minor" engineering problem not discussed so far is the tiny problem of maximizing both the height of the building and the lifetime of the building, because to make a profit vs just burning a little more cheap fuel is going to take centuries, eons. We're talking about budgeting around, thru, and long after the next ice age.

The economic problem is, what is the net present value of a multi trillion dollar building that saves perhaps a couple million per year in fuel costs, in an economic environment where the money supply is growing at about a 10% annual rate. Hmm I'm thinking thats not terribly profitable.

Re:could it be scaled up (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117518)

Ah, Slashdot!: Where no creative idea is too good to be voiced without being shot down by a dozen technical objections before it can even take flight.

Space flight was achieved by addressing technical objections, not by ignoring them and pretending "creativity" is all there is to it.

So for instance, if your creative idea requires a 20km high tower made of solid unobtainium, then you have a problem, until you actually succeed at coming up with a material with the required properties.

The OP's idea is speculative, but could be a good way of saving fuel in the first few seconds of rocket flight. But if the general community of engineers has the kind of attitude on display around here, I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.

You're proposing the idea, it's your job to prove it can be done. So go provide some calculations.

Re:could it be scaled up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117822)

It always blows my mind how quickly the fantasies and delusions pop up when rockets or space flight are mentionned. The most clueless people get all butthurt that we don't have impossible technologies, then blame the *engineers* that BUILT all the stuff we *DO* have! WHY!?

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117694)

I doubt anyone will even bother to do the calculations.

We invite you to do them for us. But I have intuitively strong objections to dangling a hose full of combustible fuel behind a rocket that is trailing a long, hot flame.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117888)

Let's not forget that rockets do not travel straight up. The shuttle, for example, would be about 15km downrange when it gets to 20km of altitude.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117970)

That depends on the mass of the fuel and the friction of the hose. You could get something like a small-scale orbital fountain effect, so the hose could be designed to be self-supporting.

The problem of how you dispose of a 20 km hose after it detaches would still remain.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117984)

I've had a similar idea involving giant elastic bands to launch a rocket. Not all the way, obviously - but if you can maybe give it an elastic band boost just on launch, could you cut even one percent off the fuel requirements?

Re:could it be scaled up (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117188)

10-20km of hose would be kind of heavy. Especially the top of the hose which has to hold up the rest...

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117284)

well its more the rocket is pulling the hose directly behind it as it ascends, with powerful pumps pumping liquid hydrogen into the bottom of the hose, as it is pulled up from a large coil laid around the lauch pad. then it is detached from the rocket end at 10 km or some similar height. im curious as to how the tensile strength of kevlar would hold up to that. 10km of hose by about 1 kg per meter of hose is about 10 tonnes. that dosent seem infeasible.

Re:could it be scaled up (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117428)

Not just tensile strength. 10km of head of pressure is not insignificant, and would require one hell of a pump to push it up there, and a lot of strength to hold it in.

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117496)

Not just tensile strength. 10km of head of pressure is not insignificant, and would require one hell of a pump to push it up there, and a lot of strength to hold it in.

Well, you could put multiple pumps along the hose. Of course there will be problems supplying them, so how about distributed tankage along the hose.

Then maybe you could optimize that, by simplifying, by installing all the pumps and tanks in the vehicle. Hmm. I think this idea has promise, powerpoints and promotions for all!

Re:could it be scaled up (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117680)

Not just tensile strength. 10km of head of pressure is not insignificant, and would require one hell of a pump to push it up there, and a lot of strength to hold it in.

Not just tensile strength and massive pumps, but that hose is going to be trailing through the exhaust plume of a rocket. It's going to have to have enormous insulating properties for it to maintain cryogenic temperatures within the hose while facing 3000C temperatures on the outside.

Replace HOSE with LASER and they are working on it (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117444)

This is the idea behind laser powered flight. Rather then carry the energy (fuel) up with you, you fire the energy at the craft and save a lot of weight. The reason they want to use a laser and not a fuel hose is that nobody is willing to untangle several kilometers of hose after the launch and put it in the rather large garden shed.

Oh look it's Super Mario! (3, Interesting)

Arty2 (1742112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117160)

Seems to me they discovered the FLUDD [mariowiki.com] , nice.

Oblig. Warning (2)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117202)

WARNING: Jet Pack does not function as a flotation device.

HEX

"Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117204)

The Tethered, Water-Powered Jetpack. With 1,900-Newton thrust.

Falling 30 feet onto water might not be pleasant, but neither is it going kill you.

"Do you care to comment, Mr. Knoxville? We would like an expert opinion.

2 hours? (5, Insightful)

binarstu (720435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117214)

Why is 2 hours of flight time an apparent selling point for this thing? Why would anyone need or want to hover a few feet above the surface of a lake for 2 hours nonstop? Granted, you can "fly" much longer than in more traditional jetpacks, but it seems a bit like bragging about a car that can go 600 miles on a single tank but is permanently tethered to the gas station.

That said, it sure looks fun to try.

Re:2 hours? (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117358)

personally, I see it as an alternative to a water scooter. however, this thing allows you to go over the water at a relatively large height, and might be useful in a search because you see more. Although I don't know if it wouldn't in fact turn out to be cheaper to just use helicopters in the search (where you see even more).
Anyway, it's not in any way like a car tethered to the gas station. planes work the same way, but with air (they pull and push air, this thing pulls and pushes water).

Re:2 hours? (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117562)

From the video I watched it looked like if you wanted any kind of speed you couldn't be as high. The concern I would have with that is assuming you got up to a good clip and assuming you are only 4 feet off the water. If the pump happens to go through a wake and gets slowed down. Which would hit the water first, your feet or your face?
Basically it looks like if all you want to do is hover then this is great, if you want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, 100k can get you a pretty decent boat.

Re:2 hours? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117872)

Alternatively a parachute connected to a boat.

Re:2 hours? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118154)

Although in this case you get to steer yourself around.

It isn't world peace, but I could imagine paying $10 for a 5 minute ride on it.

Compared to a jet ski, not jolting along the chop would be nice.

Re:2 hours? (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118240)

Parasailing behind a remote controlled speed boat would be fun though.

I thought that initially but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117520)

Watch the video... It looks like the bit on the water gets pulled along by the hose as the user flies around.

The only constraint is the height and that you stay over water.

Re:2 hours? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117528)

It would be impressive if cars were still a novelty and couldn't go more than 200 meters on a tank. Even 10 miles/gallon would be impressive then. It doesn't make a practical car yet, but it paves the way to making one.
At this point there are no practical jetpacks, but a longer flight time is one of the requirements of any future practical jetpack and this is a step forward in that respect.

Re:2 hours? (1)

Takichi (1053302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117744)

No idea if it's practical as I have no experience, but I was thinking this could eventually be useful for maintenance on large ships. You're in water and have a power source, so just jump over the edge, do any repairs that need to be done, and rocket back up on deck. Of course there are other options, like sending boats into the water or using rope ladders, but this has the potential of being faster and more flexible.

Re:2 hours? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117862)

Hey, my car CAN go 600 miles on a single (55l) tank, even without beeing tethered to a gas station.

Re:2 hours? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118098)

Depending on the lake, 2 hours might not even be enough time to get across. It's only vertical distance that's tethered. Horizontal movement is free.

I mean, when you think about it "why would anyone want or need to walk around on the surface of the ground for two hours nonstop"?

Re:2 hours? (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118270)

Jet packs, by comparison, average about 20 seconds...

Dupe? (2, Informative)

Nibbler(C) (574581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117262)

I think i've seen this before, I wonder where that was. Oh wait, it was two years ago, on /. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/17/0058202/Jet-Pack-Runs-For-Hours-On-Water [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe? (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117548)

They must be slipping. Dupes are normally in the same week.

Re:Dupe? (4, Informative)

bhsx (458600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118152)

Not a dupe, the old article was about him trying to bring this thing to market. He's now selling these to anyone with the cash.

this looks just like the two hours of flight time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117274)

this looks just like the two hours of flight time I get from the hose just above my mutated 3-ball yellow asian scrotum.

big dick + mindless puppet overrule millions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117290)

what a surprise?

old joke (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117304)

Reminds me of an old joke about a wrist watch with a built in TV and built in radio and photo-camera and various other tools.

The only catch was that if you bought that watch you always had to carry 2 suitcases with you.

They were filled with batteries.

How about using it underwater? (2)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117316)

I'm watching that clip and wondering if you strap on SCUBA gear, make the engine neutrally buoyant, include oxygen tanks for its engine, and just go nuts under water.

Now you have a jet-powered underwater propulsion system. That's got to be rather cool and maybe even useful?

Re:How about using it underwater? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117346)

Cool maybe, but a simple ducted propeller like in speedboats would be more effective. And hey - it still emits a jet of water...

150Kg person (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117320)

So I guess it's not much use for Americans :-)

*ducks and runs*

Re:150Kg person (1)

OddJobBob (1965628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118292)

Well that is where you are wrong. Mark II will use liposuction to provide propulsion and body sculpting.

It's... beautiful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117384)

Imagine a Beowulf-cluster of...

No, I'm sorry guys, I've got nothing.

That looks like about as much fun as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117452)

...piloting a wave runner from the top of a ten foot pole.

Slashdot's Trusty Time Machine at work! (4, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117466)

Jet Pack Runs For Hours On Water [slashdot.org]

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday February 17 2009, @06:11AM

from the got-your-back dept.

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.

It's 2009 again!

Re:Slashdot's Trusty Time Machine at work! (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117830)

they're taking orders now at $130,000 each.

Perhaps the news peg is the $30,000 price cut since then?

150 kilos (0)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117506)

Guess they wont be selling many in America.

Waterfall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117524)

You've just got to make sure, if you're using it on a river that your base unit doesn't fly down a waterfall - even rapids would give quite a kick.

The missing bits (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117538)

it costs $100,000 and your dragging a huge engine in a boat behind you.

would it save you from getting seasick or would you be bouncing up and down with the swell anyway?
wonder if it would be any use for sea rescue its relatively quick at 35 mph and you'd have a reasonable chance of spotting someone in the water. cheaper than a helicopter any way.

diving with it or something similar might be another interesting possibility

looks like fun anyway.

Renting it could prove popular

Re:The missing bits (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35118166)

"wonder if it would be any use for sea rescue its relatively quick at 35 mph and you'd have a reasonable chance of DROWNING someone in the water"

Fixed that for you.

Wile E Coyote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117556)

This so reminds me of Wile E Coyote. Finally, the Acme Jet Pack!

I'd particularly like to watch this when the flier is up at maximum height and going 35mph, and suddenly the boat hits something and stops.

against all odds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117572)

""We left our children at home and came to fight for their future here," she says.

Business owner Abu Bakr Makhlouf is a member of Egypt's elite. He wears a stylish overcoat to ward off the chill of Tahrir Square. He wasn't politically active in the past – he used to worry about what might happen to his children. Now he's been through the tear gas and the rattling batons and thinks it's better for his family if he fights. "I will stay here – I told my wife not to wait for me. There's no way back for us," he says."

the lights are coming up all over now. the kids with bullet holes in them won't forget what the greed, fear & ego of a few, can cause for all of us.

Needs an application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35117596)

Pretty useless, as is.
On the other hand, connecting it to a fire hydrant and using it to wash the windows of a 3 or 4 story building....

Re:Needs an application (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117710)

On the other hand, connecting it to a fire hydrant and using it to wash the windows of a 3 or 4 story building....

Not to mention any cars underneath parked within a 50 foot radius.

Pop up Target (1)

syntheticmemory (1232092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117766)

Perfect for drawing fire on the battlefield.

Meh (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117968)

One more overpriced toy that I'll never have. Next

Ready market found for device. (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35117992)

If the length of the hose could be increased to say 30 feet, enough to put you over the rail of a cargo freighter, you can sell these devices to the Somali pirates!

Of course first US Navy and Marines will fund the R&D to develop it as AMBaIV (Advanced Marine Boarding and Inspection Vehicle) to serve in the blockade missions. The R&D Center will be in the home district of some powerful senator. So it will get funded. Then the specs will creep up, ability to hover with a machine gun ... 200 rounds of ammunition... SatNav system... eventually a 105 mm naval gun will be added (and 200 rounds of ammunition). Eventually the cost of the system will be so much that actual deployment will never get funded. But using all the R&D knowledge accumulated in the Defense Contractor, they will create a civilian version. Which will start out as a recreational vehicle. Once the production tooling and factories have been paid off the prices will drop. So the early units coming out of service will have very low resale value. These will be bought by the Somali pirates.

I'll Bite (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118202)

It is nifty but completely impractical. According to the article, it needs a 250hp motor to drive a pump to deliver enough thrust to achieve some levitation. It is cool as a stunt, but unless they figure out how to cram 250hp into something small and light weight, I'd say it is showmanship.

Travel to work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35118234)

Now all I need is a canal between my home and workplace and I can ride a (water) jet-pack to work.

On second thought, call me back when I can get a real jet-pack that runs for 30 minutes or so.

Upgrade to a four hour time (1)

bxbaser (252102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118254)

turn of the pump and ride in the boat

Why not just... (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118258)

Put a 10 meter scissor-lift on a boat?

I can't imagine shooting a massive fire hose directly into the water is exactly "stealthy", I'm not sure how stable the guy floating on that water jet is, making recon photos (at the least) blurry, and if you have to keep a boat and a tether with you, what are you saving versus a boat with a scissor-lift.

Or, perhaps you could use one of those "mobile surveillance towers" [policemag.com] I've seen in some parking lots/sporting events

Where did the canoe go? (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35118284)

So what happens when hundreds of gallons per minute are spewed at high velocity directly downward into a less-than-fully-stable watercraft?
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...