PDA

View Full Version : see this engineering wonder wow !



Alistair Hosie
08-06-2016, 07:05 PM
Man guys this amazes me, see how simple it looks and unsophisticated piece of home made technology. I am in awe of this. Alistair



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM

elf
08-06-2016, 08:28 PM
Why just post a youtube link? Why don't you add what it's actually about so one can decide whether or not to waste time on it?

Joe_B
08-06-2016, 08:54 PM
OK, that is pretty damn cool! Thanks for posting it.

Arcane
08-06-2016, 09:40 PM
Once quadcopters came out it was inevitable someone, actually several someones worldwide, would start to make bigger and better ones that would carry a person higher, faster and farther. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring to the craft la the improvements to bicycles and airplanes.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview

Mcgyver
08-06-2016, 11:04 PM
it was cool....but please use OT in the title......and a gentle nudge towards meaningful thread titles in general, as a courtesy. Its enforced on PM and works well. I prefer the minimal rule environment we have here.... maybe it could just become the we do things

Paul Alciatore
08-07-2016, 02:27 AM
I agree about more meaningful titles, but why does this one require an "OT"? It seems to me that there must be a heck of a lot of shop work in all of them.




it was cool....but please use OT in the title......and a gentle nudge towards meaningful thread titles in general, as a courtesy. Its enforced on PM and works well. I prefer the minimal rule environment we have here.... maybe it could just become the we do things

RB211
08-07-2016, 08:39 AM
Model gas turbine with vectored thrust? I want to see the innards to see how they get the fine control

old mart
08-07-2016, 10:25 AM
Glad to see they had the sense to fly over water. They must be gas turbines, the control is far better than I could have imagined.

Alistair Hosie
08-07-2016, 06:52 PM
but why does this one require an "OT"? It seems to me that there must be a heck of a lot of shop work in all of them.
Well to be honest That's exactly what I thought. Do you think there is no engineering in this. I find that kind of dead on topic sorry if I offended anyone. Alistair

Rustybolt
08-07-2016, 08:34 PM
Until theres more information I'm calling BS.

Joe_B
08-07-2016, 08:48 PM
I found this on the same page, It seems to be legit because he got a Guinness world record for flight distance, although I guess that could be fake as well.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=588du55BcAY

garyhlucas
08-07-2016, 09:03 PM
It's real. It has six model airplane turbojet engines. Because they are so small they turn at speeds of up to 400,000 rpm! I don't think it is thrust vectoring, more likely just throttle control, which is all that quad copters use.

Arcane
08-07-2016, 09:26 PM
Until theres more information I'm calling BS.

That's just what was said by the people who used to believe the world was flat!.

fixerdave
08-07-2016, 11:31 PM
It's real. ...

Seems to be a bit of a debate still, though tending towards real. The guy flying it gave an interview... 4 thrust engines and 2 side ones for stability. The backpack he's wearing is a fuel tank, not a parachute. Most of the work went into automatic stability control... he said the batteries died on him once and it was an immediate dunk... no way to fly without it. He said they will be going for a distance record soon. Then again, he also said the 4 engines make over 1000 HP, which might be "true" in a mathematical conversion sort of way.

When he lands in a crowd of people... as he said he will when he does the distance record, then it will be more than a "he said" kind of thing.

David...

Mcgyver
08-08-2016, 07:21 AM
but why does this one require an "OT"? It seems to me that there must be a heck of a lot of shop work in all of them.
Well to be honest That's exactly what I thought. Do you think there is no engineering in this. I find that kind of dead on topic sorry if I offended anyone. Alistair

you didn't offend, and no one is upset....just saying more descriptive titles would be nice. imo it was OT. Having engineering or machined parts somewhere under the plastic cowling doesn't exactly make the video machining, diy or homeshop stuff. whatever, not a big deal.

JoeLee
08-08-2016, 08:10 AM
I have to wonder what good that helmet would be if he falls off or crashes. I think a parashoot would be a more appropriate safety device if there is one that works at low altitude.

JL..........

Rustybolt
08-08-2016, 08:28 AM
That's just what was said by the people who used to believe the world was flat!.

Being skeptical is not the same as being stupid.
The ancient Greeks knew the world was round and probably the Persians and Egyptians.

hermetic
08-08-2016, 12:38 PM
1000hp in that size and weight, I'm definitely calling bull****! Nice CGI though. Would love to see the turbines that spin at 400,000rpm after they had been dunked in the sea, and a fall from much above 200ft with that attached to your feet would be deadly. Not possible!

Edwin Dirnbeck
08-08-2016, 02:15 PM
If it is real,the guy needs to move to the USA .With a good publicist, It seems that he could easily raise millions. Maybe the reason that I am sceptcal is In the USA, he would be on every news show and maybe even have a book and a film deal.Also there were hundreds of amature people with cameras phones making videos, but all of the youtube videos seem to be very well made and sponsored. Edwin Dirnbeck

Royldean
08-09-2016, 07:34 AM
If it is real,the guy needs to move to the USA .

I disagree. This thing is a liability nightmare. The lawyers will never let this fly in the US.....

Rustybolt
08-09-2016, 08:57 AM
One site claims he's using 4 250 HP turbine motors. Now I'm definitely calling BS

Royldean
08-09-2016, 12:22 PM
One site claims he's using 4 250 HP turbine motors. Now I'm definitely calling BS

Commonly available model aircraft engines are available up to 150hp with only a few minutes of research on the google machine. 250hp doesn't seem that far off....

Mcgyver
08-09-2016, 12:40 PM
Commonly available model aircraft engines are available up to 150hp with only a few minutes of research on the google machine. 250hp doesn't seem that far off....

must be one heck of a model.....a cesna 150 is only 100hp

http://i.imgur.com/oil7tkj.jpg

Willy
08-09-2016, 01:14 PM
One site claims he's using 4 250 HP turbine motors. Now I'm definitely calling BS


Ditto!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview


We have four engines inside, and the power is 250 horsepower each. Its about 1,000 horsepower total.

I find it hard to believe that they are getting that kind of power density in that small of a package.
If indeed he is generating that much power then this thing is grossly inefficient!

Mcgyver
08-09-2016, 01:44 PM
I find it hard to believe that they are getting that kind of power density in that small of a package.


same here...not my area of expertise, but it just intuitively doesn't make sense. Its takes some work to get half that in a car let alone 1000hp ....where weight, space, fuel consumption and storage hardly matter compared to a personal flying device

Rustybolt
08-09-2016, 02:08 PM
Commonly available model aircraft engines are available up to 150hp with only a few minutes of research on the google machine. 250hp doesn't seem that far off....

The biggest I could find was 48 lbs of thrust. I don't know how that works out for HP.
Believe me. I would like for this to be true, but my natural suspicions arose when no attempt was made to describe the propulsion system. Plus the only hype about it comes from their own website. If this were true all kinds of technomedia would be all over it.

Sparky_NY
08-09-2016, 05:47 PM
I'm undecided if true or bs. 40-50lbs thrust is what the model airplane jets are doing these days, and about 150K rpm at full throttle. I suppose its possible the person doing the interview got it wrong, and the total horsepower is about 250, not each engine. Another fact is that turbines don't spool up fast, their throttle response is poor. The videos show pretty snappy handling and if this is done by varying thrust that would be awful fast for a jet. If the 4 engines underneath are 50lb thrust each, that would be 200lbs total which would be enough to hover a 200lb man, so the power is not really out of line with whats possible. The side thruster engines (red), look to me to possibly be electric ducted fans, not jet engines, that is a neutral data point, not as much thrust is needed there and the electric ones will respond fast. The guidance system is in line with things already common place, like a segway or hoverboard. Guiness record is encouraging, they verify records authenticity pretty strictly.

I lean towards real with a bit of reservation still.

Sparky_NY
08-09-2016, 06:03 PM
The biggest I could find was 48 lbs of thrust. I don't know how that works out for HP.
Believe me. I would like for this to be true, but my natural suspicions arose when no attempt was made to describe the propulsion system. Plus the only hype about it comes from their own website. If this were true all kinds of technomedia would be all over it.

I have not kept up with current rc jet technology (I used to), but it only took a minute to easily fine one with 88 lbs of thrust. Don't know what the current big dogs are.

(right most column)
http://www.jetcatusa.com/images/Engine%20Data%20Sheet%207-14-2015.pdf

Arcane
08-09-2016, 06:08 PM
Ditto!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview



I find it hard to believe that they are getting that kind of power density in that small of a package.
If indeed he is generating that much power then this thing is grossly inefficient!

Thanks for reposting the link I originally found and posted in post#4.

Willy
08-09-2016, 06:33 PM
Thanks for reposting the link I originally found and posted in post#4.

You're more than welcome.

For the record when I quote someone or or an article I like to leave a link in order to give those that may read it a source from which it originally came. To be perfectly honest I did not see your link at all and found it just like you, as it is right at the top of the page when searching for "Zapata Racing". I had no idea that it was your link.

I guess I should have quoted your post #4 and then given credit to you so that I would not of have stepped on your toes. I'll be more careful of those here that are so sensitive about this issue in the future.
If only I had been more comprehensive in my reading skills.:rolleyes:

phil burman
08-09-2016, 07:50 PM
How is a (hovering) jet engine thrust related to horse power?

Phil:)

garyhlucas
08-09-2016, 08:35 PM
The horsepower total very well could be way off as the power generated is difficult to measure and it is kind of like an electric motor on a VFD. Might be a 20 hp motor and drive but running at low speed the actual hp can be much less. However if you look at how much power quad copters use and compare that to a large airplane model of the same weight you will see the quad copters are extremely inefficient. It is brute force not finesse.

RB211
08-09-2016, 08:38 PM
Death Trap

Arcane
08-09-2016, 08:45 PM
You're more than welcome.

For the record when I quote someone or or an article I like to leave a link in order to give those that may read it a source from which it originally came. To be perfectly honest I did not see your link at all and found it just like you, as it is right at the top of the page when searching for "Zapata Racing". I had no idea that it was your link.

I guess I should have quoted your post #4 and then given credit to you so that I would not of have stepped on your toes. I'll be more careful of those here that are so sensitive about this issue in the future.
If only I had been more comprehensive in my reading skills.:rolleyes:

Most people would just graciously say "Sorry".

Willy
08-09-2016, 08:57 PM
Most people would just graciously say "Sorry".


Most people wouldn't even bring it up.

I have nothing to be sorry for other than not having seen your link. I found it just like you, all by myself. I will admit that you found it first if that's what it takes to make you feel so much better.
It happens all the time here and on other forums as well I'm sure. Someone posts a link or makes a statement, several posts later another person comes up with the same info. It's happened to me countless times and to others as well. The big difference there was no one took it personally enough to make it stink.

It must be past your bed time now, and besides there's adults talking here so run along little fella.

Arcane
08-09-2016, 11:40 PM
Like I said Willy, some people can be gracious.

J Tiers
08-09-2016, 11:54 PM
maybe you could strive to be one of them......

I have no idea how many times I, or someone else, may have suggested something in an early response to a question...... And then had someone a few posts on say the same thing, at which point everyone says "what a great idea", and acclaims that poster as a genius.....

I don't recall myself doing much complaining or squealing that "hey that was MY idea"....... It is just something that happens on forums..... people don't read every post, or don't see every bit of every post. Best to shake your head and let it go.

Once in a while I may make a comment such as "You mean like <poster X> suggested back in post 3?"..............

mudnducs
08-10-2016, 12:12 AM
Man guys this amazes me, see how simple it looks and unsophisticated piece of home made technology. I am in awe of this. Alistair



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM


VERY cool!!! Thanks!

Arcane
08-10-2016, 12:54 AM
maybe you could strive to be one of them.......

I'm not the one making the insults.

Willy
08-10-2016, 01:25 AM
I'm not the one making the insults.

But you are the one instigating them by calling me a liar while claiming that I somehow plagiarized your post. As God is my witness, I did not see the link in your post!

What part of "I didn't see your link" don't you understand? You repeatedly ask for an apology for my stumbling onto the same link as you, a link that is at or near the top of search results when searching for results pertaining to Zapata Racing, a name I took from the OP's Youtube link.

Do others here that gleaned information from that site you originally linked to owe you a royalty or an apology as well? What about the thousands of other folks who linked to that web page when discussing the airboard on other discussion boards or blogs??

Good Lord, let it go man.
It happens all the time, usually unintentional. Like J.Tiers mentioned, sometimes it hurts a bit when someone else is proclaimed the genius for an idea that you posted first. But like him and many others here, I let it slide knowing full well that it is on record for all to read, the truth in those cases cannot be denied to those that deserve it. All one has to do in those cases is to read the thread to see what transpired.

But more often than not it occurs innocently and completely unintentionally, most mature adults realize this and let it go.
So you won't get an "I'm sorry" from me, for doing nothing more that demonstrating my lack of reading comprehension skills by not picking up on the link you left.

KIMFAB
08-10-2016, 02:16 AM
I have no idea how many times I, or someone else, may have suggested something in an early response to a question...... And then had someone a few posts on say the same thing, at which point everyone says "what a great idea", and acclaims that poster as a genius.....

I don't recall myself doing much complaining or squealing that "hey that was MY idea"....... It is just something that happens on forums..... people don't read every post, or don't see every bit of every post. Best to shake your head and let it go.



If it is your desire to get an idea across to someone it is better if you let the other party think it was their idea and you are just there to help.

If it is your desire to achieve fame and fortune by claiming exclusive rights because it was your only idea you will only achieve frustration.

Like J Tiers this has happened to me more than I can count, keep calm, have a banana. Don't make me bring out my TSA poster. :)

PStechPaul
08-10-2016, 03:37 AM
Using my http://enginuitysystems.com/EVCalculator.htm for a vehicle of 100 kg gross weight accelerating at 9.8 m/sec/sec (the earth's gravity constant) and moving at 20 km/h (12 MPH), requires 7.5 HP. I can't imagine why 1000 HP should be required for hovering and moderate movement laterally and vertically as shown. The fuel consumption at 1000 HP would seem to be enormous if maintained for 30 seconds. That is 750 kW * 30 = 22.5 MJ. But that converts to just 0.17 gallons of gasoline, so even at 17% efficiency just a gallon would be sufficient. For an electric vehicle this would be 6.2 kWh which at 128 wh/kg for lithium, would be 48 kg. But if the calculated 7.5 HP is true, an electric hoverboard with 50% efficiency would be 15 HP (11 kW) for 30 seconds which is 330 kJ or 92 W-h, so a 2 kg lithium battery would suffice.

As for the argument about duplicated links, I have found that sometimes the "go to last unread post" does not work properly and one must go back a page or two to see what else has been added. I have sometimes felt mildly "miffed" when someone suggests something late in a thread that I have first posted about, especially when someone admits that they "haven't read the entire thread". But it's no big deal, and I might just add another comment adding to the information presented. After all, this forum is supposed to be educational, informative, helpful, and friendly. We are hearing enough of "Only I know everything"! :rolleyes:

fixerdave
08-10-2016, 04:58 AM
...I can't imagine why 1000 HP should be required for hovering and moderate movement laterally and vertically as shown...

Well, as I originally posted :p, there may be a mathematical conversion weirdness going on. When I first read that 1000HP thing, I laughed. Then, before I posted, I thought better of it and checked. To be perfectly honest, I didn't really understand what I read. Yeah, it's confusing and didn't feel like taking the time to sort it out. So, I just put in a caveat.

It seems there's no easy conversion between pounds of thrust and horsepower. From what I read, a jet engine at full thrust in a plane that is not moving makes zero HP. Velocity is a term in the equation. Doesn't make sense but that doesn't mean it's not 'right'.

If this thing is real, then I'm just going to dump the 1000HP thing in the same bucket where I put the $19, 300W per channel car stereo amp with the .5amp fuse. :rolleyes:

David...

Richard P Wilson
08-10-2016, 06:58 AM
Well, as I originally posted :p, there may be a mathematical conversion weirdness going on. When I first read that 1000HP thing, I laughed. Then, before I posted, I thought better of it and checked. To be perfectly honest, I didn't really understand what I read. Yeah, it's confusing and didn't feel like taking the time to sort it out. So, I just put in a caveat.

It seems there's no easy conversion between pounds of thrust and horsepower. From what I read, a jet engine at full thrust in a plane that is not moving makes zero HP. Velocity is a term in the equation. Doesn't make sense but that doesn't mean it's not 'right'.



If this thing is real, then I'm just going to dump the 1000HP thing in the same bucket where I put the $19, 300W per channel car stereo amp with the .5amp fuse. :rolleyes:

David...

I have no idea what method he used, but Sir Stanley Hooker, in his autobiography 'Not much of an Engineer' said he did some calcs to compare Frank Whittle's prototype gas turbine, then giving 1000 lb of thrust, with the current RR Merlin piston engine, which was giving something like 1000hp at 20,000feet, and concluded that the thrusts were roughly comparable, and so convinced Hives, head of Rolls Royce, that the gas turbine for aircraft had potential. Given the non-existence of computers back in the 1940s, Hookers calcs must have been relatively simple.

PStechPaul
08-10-2016, 06:59 AM
This discussion has sparked my interest, so I did some digging:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/194018-pounds-thrust-horsepower.html

http://code7700.com/thrust_v_power.html

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=724847

The problem is that thrust is not directly convertible to power, but it seems obvious that you need an engine with a certain amount of power to achieve the thrust needed to accelerate the plane to a certain speed in a certain period of time. From some of the links above, it seems that it requires about 2 HP per pound of thrust, so the 200 pound hovercraft would need 400 HP.

Hovering and relatively slow movements are probably special cases, and perhaps a better example would be a helicopter. Here are some links:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/media/hfh_ch07.pdf

http://www.rcheliwiki.com/Power_to_weight_ratio

That link shows the power to weight ratio for R/C model helicopters but it's probably applicable to a hoverboard as well. It seems that just hovering requires about 200 watts per kilogram, so a 100 kg hoverboard would require 20 kW or 27 HP. The rotors of a helicopter are probably maxed out for efficiency, and the actual power probably involves the mass of the air that is moved and its velocity. The highest ratio of the helicopters listed was 667 watts/kg, so the hoverboard might be well powered with 80-100 HP, which seems reasonable. Jet engines are likely much less efficient at low speed such as takeoff or hovering, where the speed of air through the engine is very high relative to the vehicle's air speed.

The only meaningful measure of thrust vs power of a jet engine may be in terms of the measured thrust and fuel consumption, and factoring some reasonable energy conversion efficiency, perhaps 20-40%. It may also be possible to determine the CFM as if it were used as a blower or fan. What I found is something like 2 to 6 CFM per watt. This depends on back pressure and temperature and other factors.

The hoverboard will probably never be a practical mode of transportation for any significant portion of the population, as it seems to require a great deal of skill and the consequences of engine failure or pilot error are disastrous. It is somewhat analogous to the Segway, which is an inverted pendulum system that requires excellent high speed corrections to maintain balance, and that is easier with two wheels on solid ground. A more practical personal aircraft would be essentially a multi-copter situated above the pilot, who could be standing, sitting, or prone, so the center of gravity is well below the point of thrust. But the disadvantage there is that the prop wash or the jet exhaust would be directed toward the pilot. However, the engines could be slanted out and away to minimize the effect, and cowling could also be used.

Royldean
08-10-2016, 07:21 AM
must be one heck of a model.....a cesna 150 is only 100hp



(right most column)
http://www.jetcatusa.com/images/Engine%20Data%20Sheet%207-14-2015.pdf

Surely it is. Check out the Power rating on that turbine.... it equates to 155hp.

Keep in mind fixed wing aircraft requires a lot less power than rotorcraft, and this hover-thingie isn't even "rotorcraft", it's something even more power hungry....

Arcane
08-10-2016, 07:50 AM
But you are the one instigating them by calling me a liar I have NOT called you a liar therefore I have not instigated them.
while claiming that I somehow plagiarized your post.I made NO claim you plagiarized anything. What I said was "Thanks for reposting the link I originally found and posted in post#4."
As God is my witness, I did not see the link in your post!

What part of "I didn't see your link" don't you understand? You repeatedly ask for an apology for my stumbling onto the same link as you, a link that is at or near the top of search results when searching for results pertaining to Zapata Racing, a name I took from the OP's Youtube link. I have NOT asked for one apology let alone repeatedly.


Do others here that gleaned information from that site you originally linked to owe you a royalty or an apology as well? What about the thousands of other folks who linked to that web page when discussing the airboard on other discussion boards or blogs??

Good Lord, let it go man.
It happens all the time, usually unintentional. Like J.Tiers mentioned, sometimes it hurts a bit when someone else is proclaimed the genius for an idea that you posted first. But like him and many others here, I let it slide knowing full well that it is on record for all to read, the truth in those cases cannot be denied to those that deserve it. All one has to do in those cases is to read the thread to see what transpired.
But more often than not it occurs innocently and completely unintentionally, most mature adults realize this and let it go. You speak of "mature adults" and yet YOU are the one who insulted me repeatedly.

So you won't get an "I'm sorry" from me, for doing nothing more that demonstrating my lack of reading comprehension skills by not picking up on the link you left. And yet a simple "Sorry, I missed your post" is all that you had to post if you felt like replying but you had to be insulting about it. In fact, you didn't have to say anything...you could have "let it go".

Willy
08-10-2016, 09:30 AM
Yeah, Yeah. Whatever...... LOL HAHAHA

You think I have to apologize to you for not seeing a link in your almighty post...and you think I'm insulting...look at your attitude. Just because I accidentally linked to the same page as you.
Surely you have bigger fish to fry...well apparently not.

I'm done with your childish behavior.

lynnl
08-10-2016, 12:28 PM
See, this is what I like about internet discussions, ...the friendly, cordial exchange of intelligent ideas and information. :rolleyes:

fixerdave
09-23-2016, 07:13 PM
I guess it wasn't a hoax:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj0_UfC5v-4

The guy did it. No BS... unless that stands for BADA$$, 'cause I think I might want one.

David...