Slashdot Log In
Jet Pack Runs For Hours On Water
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Feb 17, 2009 05:11 AM
from the got-your-back dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
are you crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:are you crazy? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the advantage to this, over just riding on a boat? You can get the same results by towing a balloon with a camera attached to it, without risking someones life. The only use I can see for it is for entertainment, like those parachute rides at the beach.
Re:are you crazy? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
but... (Score:3, Insightful)
But at least it is compatible with over 70% of the earth's surface
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Right! Just like a jet-ski, boat or any other water craft tends to fail when pulled out of the water. Well, except on a jet-ski, you impact the pier at 50 mph whereas with this thing, you your jets fail and you fall on to the pier or bank. There is no mention of how this thing operates when it's pulled out of the water. The jets may die all at once, causing you to free-fall, or the pressure may drop over a few seconds, giving you are much softer landing.
Re:are you crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You could just, you know, not try to fly over land.
Since it doesn't work.
Parent
Re:are you crazy? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:are you crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of the electric car I invented - the one with the really really long extension cord.
So, you invented the Trolley [wikipedia.org]? Wow, nice to meet you.
Parent
So it doesn't run on water at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (Score:5, Funny)
The real question should be. Does it run Linux.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So it doesn't run on water at all? (Score:4, Informative)
... after all, it runs on water.
Parent
A range of 300 km? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume this is dragging the boat after you.
What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
YouTube Video (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Is your boat 15 meters tall? You get a higher view, which has many uses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ahh, so yer mizzen t'gallant crowsnest is two and a half fathoms above the waves, matey?
Re:A range of 300 km? (Score:4, Insightful)
Same goes for water skiing and parascending... The point is, its fun!
Parent
Missing the point of a jet pack. (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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
round and round (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Worms (Score:3, Funny)
> 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. (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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".
Military and coastguard applications (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure not to fly it over the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing only goes up 50' high. Not very useful for observational purposes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is a joke, right? (Score:2)
So... what's it going to be used for? Rescuing cats from trees along the river?
Re:This is a joke, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Slow news day (Score:2)
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
Prior art (Score:3, Funny)
This is pretty much a human Water Wiggle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D_WdavMuKs [youtube.com]
So What? (Score:2, Informative)
You are invited... (Score:5, Funny)
Team sports (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Just another... (Score:2)
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.
Join my campaign (Score:3, Funny)
Firetruck? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I can't believe no one has said this yet (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia... the [waterskier|parasailer] tows the boat!
Re:Dollars are cheaper than pouns! (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you get the design. The hose reaches down to a raft. The raft has the energy plant and sucks up the water which is pumped to the jet pack.
Essentially, this is a Jetski seat which hovers above the water via a tether down to the jetski.
Yes it is! (Score:5, Informative)
Go and look up what a jet actually is. Here. Let me help you [wiktionary.org].
Pay particular attention to number 4.
Parent