Dumb things being crowdfunded.
-
I finally looked over this lunacy. Holy shit, these guys are so far removed from reality that they should either be imprisoned as con artists or hospitalized for mental illness. We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility, let alone being a possibility for small scale transport such as hover bikes.
I do however smile just a bit when I imagine one of these idiots slamming in to something at full speed because airborne vehicles have effectively no brakes. I mean, yeah, you could deploy air brakes by increasing drag, but doing so in close proximity to the ground is a bad idea for basically all of the reasons.
-
In much the same way that a Honda Civic costs a similar amount as a HA-420 HondaJet.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
you could deploy air brakes by increasing drag
And air brakes only work at high speed. They are relatively ineffective at typical road vehicle speeds. I can actually air brake my motorcycle from 70 down to 45 pretty quickly (though not nearly as fast as using the real brakes) just by standing up on it, but at that point there's not much drag left.
-
Many causes of automobile accidents could be eliminated, such as poorly paved roads, hydroplaning, or loss of traction.
Can't have loss of traction when you don't have any. Brilliant!!!
-
We are working for a dry weight of between 240 and 400 lbs.
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
Removal of ground friction has an unquestionable effect on efficiency
Huh? No. Airplanes are not "more efficient" than rolling vehicles. They are also most efficient at altitude where the air is thinner. It requires a large expenditure of energy just to keep a vehicle aloft. A friend has a single-engine turboprop. He figures 45-65 gallons per hour for time aloft. This is not a huge aircraft. It is a small turboprop. That is at FL310. Fuel burn goes way up as you reduce altitude.
See below chart:
At maximum cruise speed at 5,000' you are consuming 79.7gph, at FL310 it is down to 60.6gph. That is a 25% efficiency increase you are not going to get at ground level.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
I just heard Thunderf00t's voice!
-
Hovering is terribly inefficient because you're consuming huge amounts of energy just to stay in place, e.g. no "work" done.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@izzion well, at least it won't cost them much as an absolute cost:
Not entirely true. Kickstarter doesn't charge nor pay anything until it meets the goal before the deadline. If it doesn't make it, no money changes hands.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are working for a dry weight of between 240 and 400 lbs.
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
Flying close to the ground does make things more efficient than flying at any altitude thanks to the ground effect, but I still wonder why you would do it.
-
@JBert said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are working for a dry weight of between 240 and 400 lbs.
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
Flying close to the ground does make things more efficient than flying at any altitude thanks to the ground effect, but I still wonder why you would do it.
It increases lift, but does not increase efficiency. Unless you are defining efficiency as that increase in lift. Planes are most efficient, in a sense of fuel efficiency and range, when at altitude. Thinner air means less air resistance and drag to counteract.
Both are vastly less efficient than a rolling load because a rolling load does not expend energy to keep itself aloft.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
Both are vastly less efficient than a rolling load because a rolling load does not expend energy to keep itself aloft.
I call bullshit. As @mott555 justly said, you don't do any work when just staying in place so obviously you don't consume any energy to do so. A stopped car doesn't consume any energy.
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering".
That's stupid. Obviously battery technology is making such progress these days that you will soon be able to go anywhere with that amount of batteries.
These guys are going to revolutionize the transportation industry, like Elon Musk is revolutionizing the car industry! Just look at all the threads we have about how smart he is!
-
@remi stand there holding a full suitcase at arm's length. You're doing no work, but you'll sure get tired.
-
@Benjamin-Hall much?
-
@remi since it takes no energy to keep those jets up in the air, of course I whenever possible
-
@Benjamin-Hall
I've been standing here holding my suitcase for hours, not getting tired. Instructions unclear.
-
@remi said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
That's stupid. Obviously battery technology is making such progress these days that you will soon be able to go anywhere with that amount of batteries.
Hell, we've got companies who have figured out how to increase battery capacity with software updates!
-
@boomzilla Well I've been downloading more RAM for years on my computers, so I really don't see what's the fuss about all that.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
It always bothered me that hovering in mid-air does not actually take any work, yet requires massive amounts of energy. Some physicists need to find a better way to hover already!
-
@anonymous234 It's that pesky normal force compensating 9.81 N/kg of gravity which is generally provided by a fixed surface.
-
@anonymous234 I get what you're saying and it made me chuckle, but if energy is being
consumedconverted for some amount of time, then work is being done. :)
-
@anonymous234 said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
It always bothered me that hovering in mid-air does not actually take any work, yet requires massive amounts of energy. Some physicists need to find a better way to hover already!
IIRC it's not that it takes no work - it's that when you add all the micro-work that happen at particle level because of having to counteract gravity, and micro-work of gravity, you get zero - but there's still a lot of movement (= work = energy used).
-
@anonymous234 said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
It always bothered me that hovering in mid-air does not actually take any work,
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility
It's been demonstrated. It's just not close to commercially practical, not impossible.
-
@Gąska said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@anonymous234 said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
400 lbs of batteries would probably only get you a few hundred feet while "hovering". They just don't understand the sheer amount of energy required to keep a vehicle in flight.
It always bothered me that hovering in mid-air does not actually take any work, yet requires massive amounts of energy. Some physicists need to find a better way to hover already!
IIRC it's not that it takes no work - it's that when you add all the micro-work that happen at particle level because of having to counteract gravity, and micro-work of gravity, you get zero - but there's still a lot of movement (= work = energy used).
It's rather stemming from a very narrow definition of work, namely
Work equals Force times Distance
with the distance parallel to the direction of the force.
-
@dkf said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility
It's been demonstrated. It's just not close to commercially practical, not impossible.
Well, it would be a lot easier to get commercially started if those pesky environmentalists weren't always blocking the steady march of progress. In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
-
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Is it really environmental concerns? Isn't it more like "not wanting to irradiate everyone and everything in the world"? I think that is something even the EPA haters can get behind.
-
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@dkf said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility
It's been demonstrated. It's just not close to commercially practical, not impossible.
Well, it would be a lot easier to get commercially started if those pesky environmentalists weren't always blocking the steady march of progress. In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Erm, if you had read your own article you'd have realized that those things aren't electrical. Instead they're using the heat from fission directly to propel the aircraft's turbines.
They're not converting the fission heat into electrical energy (at least not for the purpose of propulsion).
-
@Rhywden said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@dkf said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility
It's been demonstrated. It's just not close to commercially practical, not impossible.
Well, it would be a lot easier to get commercially started if those pesky environmentalists weren't always blocking the steady march of progress. In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Erm, if you had read your own article you'd have realized that those things aren't electrical. Instead they're using the heat from fission directly to propel the aircraft's turbines.
They're not converting the fission heat into electrical energy (at least not for the purpose of propulsion).
I'm well aware. However, I do believe that it would be feasible to power a plane off of a reactor electrically. I know it's not a good idea either way, due to risk of radioactive plane pieces in someone's back yard sooner or later. But if you disregard all the risks, then it would theoretically be economically viable too.
...Hope nobody in Africa reads this forum. Lots of countries that seem to disregard any and all risk to hoi polloi.
-
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
However, I do believe that it would be feasible to power a plane off of a reactor electrically. I know it's not a good idea either way, due to risk of radioactive plane pieces in someone's back yard sooner or later.
Well, no, that's not the major risk. The major risk and insurmountable engineering problem is that you cannot adequately shield from radiation. Radiation shielding is something that, from my understanding, basically scales with mass and planes have to be light. If you put enough mass around the reactor to shield it the plane can't get off the ground.
-
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Rhywden said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@dkf said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
We are so completely far from electric flight being a possibility
It's been demonstrated. It's just not close to commercially practical, not impossible.
Well, it would be a lot easier to get commercially started if those pesky environmentalists weren't always blocking the steady march of progress. In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Erm, if you had read your own article you'd have realized that those things aren't electrical. Instead they're using the heat from fission directly to propel the aircraft's turbines.
They're not converting the fission heat into electrical energy (at least not for the purpose of propulsion).
I'm well aware. However, I do believe that it would be feasible to power a plane off of a reactor electrically.
Unlikely. First of all, you have the shielding issues for the reactor alone (as @Polygeekery already mentioned) and then you need the heat-electricity converter.
And as that one is based on steam you'll basically get a steam turbine to generate elctricity in order to power a turbine to propel the plane forward.Not really that efficient. Plus, then you also have to shield that one in addition to the reactor.
There'd also be the question of cooling the whole system with such a setup.
-
@Rhywden probly best to just use a sodium loop and heat the air, for a jet, then take electricity off of it at operation.
-
Far from a safe engine (albeit a closed system), one of my favourite terms is "Nuclear salt-water rocket."
Note that's "Nuclear salt" and "water", not "saltwater".
-
@kazitor wow, I didn't see it but I could feel the growing horrified on my face as I read that, wish I had seen it.
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
If you put enough mass around the reactor to shield it the plane can't get off
-
@homoBalkanus said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
If you put enough mass around the reactor to shield it the plane can't get off
Can't have them jizzing all over the place.
-
@Rhywden said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
There'd also be the question of cooling the whole system with such a setup.
Not an issue if you only fly over Canada
-
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Is it really environmental concerns? Isn't it more like "not wanting to irradiate everyone and everything in the world"? I think that is something even the EPA haters can get behind.
But how is that not an environmental concern? The EPA haters generally don't hate the EPA except inasmuch as it imposes things whose costs exceed their benefits.
-
@boomzilla Consider how much you'd hate them if you payed the cost and didn't see the benefit. Why, you'd quite possibly jump right into the delusional end, especially if you have no grounding in science.
-
@boomzilla said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Is it really environmental concerns? Isn't it more like "not wanting to irradiate everyone and everything in the world"? I think that is something even the EPA haters can get behind.
But how is that not an environmental concern? The EPA haters generally don't hate the EPA except inasmuch as it imposes things whose costs exceed their benefits.
For the EPA haters pretty much any cost above zero is too much as they usually figure that they don't have to clean up the mess they're creating. Tragedy of the commons and all that shit, y'know?
-
@Rhywden said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
as they usually figure that they don't have to clean up the mess they're creating.
Yes, that is exactly why I hate the EPA, they create messes all the fucking time that they don't clean up.
-
@Rhywden said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@boomzilla said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@Polygeekery said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
@acrow said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
In fact, if not for environmental concerns, we would have flown electrically for decades now:
Is it really environmental concerns? Isn't it more like "not wanting to irradiate everyone and everything in the world"? I think that is something even the EPA haters can get behind.
But how is that not an environmental concern? The EPA haters generally don't hate the EPA except inasmuch as it imposes things whose costs exceed their benefits.
For the EPA haters pretty much any cost above zero is too much as they usually figure that they don't have to clean up the mess they're creating. Tragedy of the commons and all that shit, y'know?
False but predictable.
-
-
@MZH I'm intrigued by the added bonus of not being disposable cutlery. Because metal cutlery just isn't available anywhere for under $40.
Side note: how well would "tape + fork" work as an alternative? Or, god forbid, not using a phone for three minutes?
-
@kazitor said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
metal cutlery just isn't available anywhere for under $40.
But metal cutlery is sooooo last century
-
I like how they say "9GAG loves it" – read some comments.
-
It took us almost a year to achieve to perfect design for a seamless experience of simultaneously eating while browsing.
-
Do not stop eating!
-
It's not as if they could use their other hand to hold their phone...
Also, it comes with a cutlery storage rack for when you want to take your sphoon or phork with you:
What could possibly be wrong with stuffing a fork into your pockets?
-
@JBert said in Dumb things being crowdfunded.:
What could possibly be wrong with stuffing a fork into your pockets?
They'd bend when you sit down
-
Well I'm glad to see they still only have $243. Looks like there was an initial wave of 12 stupid people but nobody else since.