/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7561816]

Why has no-one built a propeller based hoverboard? Sure it will be noisy but fire and rescue won't care.

[Anonymous No.7561827]

It's called a helicopter.

But yes someone will probably build quad copter for search and rescue purposes in city environments sooner or later.
It's not that challenging from mechanical perspective but the applications of such device are just relatively limited.

[Anonymous No.7561828]

I'm guessing it needs much more fuel compared to what motorbikes burn to spin two wheels, considering the ground compensates most of the drivers weight. Although the extra fuel consumption would balance out since you can travel on the shortest straight line between two points rather than using the available roads and waiting in traffic.

[Anonymous No.7561905]

>>7561816
>Why has no-one built a propeller based hoverboard?
Because you're ignorant.

[Anonymous No.7561940]

>>7561816

I've saw jet packs for EMT teams actually. I can't really remember where but they do exist.

[Anonymous No.7561947]

>>7561940
http://www.martinjetpack.com/

[Anonymous No.7561949]

> Build giant quadrotor
> Ride on it
Why isn't this a thing yet ?

[Anonymous No.7561955]

>>7561816
Came here to post this

[Anonymous No.7561965]

>>7561816
>WHY HAS NOONE BUILT/THOUGHT OF [very obvious and simplistic idea] YET????ßß
fucking mongoloids and their inability to do research on their own

pro tip: if your "idea" involves two simple things combined(such as hoverboard+quadcopter) then the chance that it has already crossed someones elses mind is VERY FUCKING HIGH

[Anonymous No.7562027]

>>7561816
droneboard

[Anonymous No.7562082]

>>7561816

Because it shares the same problems with all these new promising new techs: fuel.

You can have everything to build cool hoverboards, androids and wearable tech, but none of this will take off unless battery technology catches up with them.

[Anonymous No.7562203]

>>7562027
I like this. Is this something that is actually being worked on or is it just a hypothetica?

[Anonymous No.7562211]

>>7561816
Is it the engine that's noisy on these things? Because if it is then electricity could solve that.

[Anonymous No.7562478]

>>7562211
>blades chopping air hundred times a second
>engine's noise the problem

[Anonymous No.7562486]

>>7562478
Actually yeah.

[Anonymous No.7562729]

>>7562203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfa9HrieUyQ

[Anonymous No.7562845]

>>7561816
I'm pretty sure Lady Gaga wore a dress to that effect.

[Anonymous No.7562968]

>>7561905
Good idea but barely flew, needs a 21st century remake with carbon fibre
>>7561827
Helicopters are massive, expensive, dangerous and hard to fly.
>>7561949
I think the battery only lasted a few seconds if you watch the video
>>7561965
>If it's simple someone already tried it and realized it didn't work
True but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Looking back on it the rocket was a very obvious way of getting into space but nobody bothered developing them to that level until WW2 broke out. Right now the multicopter is a very obvious method of making a hoverboard but no-one with the money and expertise is really interested in developing that at this moment. If the military cared about hoverboards they'd have created the necessary batteries by now.
>>7562478
Ducts are quieter.

[Anonymous No.7563215]

>>7562729
Shit son. Why is this not a thing yet ?

[Anonymous No.7564903]

>>7562968
They made other goes at hoverboards as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bensen_B-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle