Man Tests Real Hoverboard

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I will be so upset if this turns out to be fake. Personally, I don't think it is fake because this is the same guy that invented those water-powered jet pack hover thingies a few years ago but, you never know. This guy must have balls of steel to be riding something like this around. At least with the water jet pack if something goes wrong you'd just land in the water. On this thing, it's just splat! :eek:
 
It would be extremely impressive if real, but I do have an idea on how to do it. Execution and weight to thrust ratio are the problem, he might have figured it out...or not. My first instinct? Fake. There are no shots of the actual takeoff or landing.
 
Very skeptical

1. Power to weight and power source size issues.
2. While it probably has crazy gyros for stability, he's flying very low - high enough to get killed, too low to react
3. Possibly suspended from a helicopter? The board gyros could keep you from spinning...
4. Cool idea, but what company could survive this device which is basically a lawsuit printing press.
 
"I'm coming for you Rickey Booby"....

If it's real, it's not practical yet. You would need at least five of something like these...burning fuel at the rate of about a gallon/minute. It's not going to be easy to setup and use either. Maintaining model turbines isn't for the faint of heart.
 
Last edited:
DoubleTap said:
Very skeptical


4. Cool idea, but what company could survive this device which is basically a lawsuit printing press.
Click to expand...


The same company makes those tethered water jetpacks that have been popping up on tropical resorts and lakes. The liability form you have to sign basically says you are responsible for your imminent death haha.
 
Ok, I watched the video more closely.

Let's lay out how such a device could actually operate:

There are no visible rotors and no wings. If the device worked, it would need to generate around 200lbs of thrust just to get an average man off the ground.

1. a rocket engine (solid or liquid fuel)
It's not a rocket - too dangerous and hard to control, especially on something this size

2. a jet engine
I believe we're supposed to believe it's a jet of some kind

Here is a bench test of a 160lb-180lb jet engine without any thrust vectoring controls.


A jet engine is a precision instrument that uses a LOT of fuel. If you crashed into a lake and it sucked water, it would probably explode and shred you (and anyone within a large radius) with flying vanes

Now watch the video from 1:52: (I guess we can't post with embedded time positions?)


The "pilot" comes in to land and look at the water! There is a 200lb down thrust just a few feet off the deck (the landing platform is a metal grate) and were is the spray? It looks like the Jetski guy made a few wakes so the lake would not be completely placid, but this is a shot of a guy suspended from a helicopter or crane being set down on a metal grate.

Unless this water jet company is using alien technology, it's a complete fabrication.

* They may have some sort of very small, light weight, possibly even electric, ducted fan system to help control the direction while in the air.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I will be so upset if this turns out to be fake. Personally, I don't think it is fake because this is the same guy that invented those water-powered jet pack hover thingies a few years ago but, you never know. This guy must have balls of steel to be riding something like this around. At least with the water jet pack if something goes wrong you'd just land in the water. On this thing, it's just splat! :eek:
Click to expand...

Didn't you see the test is over water?
 
Here is an actual jet pack. It's not small.

JB-9 jetpack makes spectacular debut flying around Statue of Liberty

I don't think some guy that makes water jets for tourists just suddenly overcame some of the most daunting challenges in aviation. People have been working on this stuff for decades and there are vehicles that work, but they are not the size of a bathroom scale.

Here is the JB-9 flying over water - compare and contrast what you see with the fake hoverboard.

 
Last edited:
Sounds like a mini jet engine and in one of the scenes, it looks like it could be four of them.

Does that make it real? No. But I think there's a difference between overcoming the engineering necessary in a way that it works and doing it in a way that is safe. If someone is stupid enough to risk their life and limb, I think it can be done with current tech.

I just pulled up real quickly a mini-jet from JetCat that does 52lb thrust, weighs 5.5lbs, and consumes 24.7fl oz of fuel every 1 minute that fits the size requirements when grouped in for. He'd likely need to have about 300lb thrust or more for any type of climb rate depending his weight.
 
Last edited:
It's fake, you can see a quadcopter shadow @ 1:37 in the video. They just used a quadcopter to get the point of view shots and then at the end it was simply a guy hanging off a crane or something to land (hence no water splashing when he's landing).
 
I'm calling BS. Look at the Water jetpack.
So much power needed to move a pilot and all the gear, with an unlimited source for propulsion (water), but the hover board has no tanks?
This is BS.
 
Stiler said:
It's fake, you can see a quadcopter shadow @ 1:37 in the video. They just used a quadcopter to get the point of view shots and then at the end it was simply a guy hanging off a crane or something to land (hence no water splashing when he's landing).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I swear in the landing shot you can see a brief artifact from removing two suspension wires. Might be YouTube though. Opening sequence with the safety guys is done to imply this is dangerous.


Buuuut. Let's see what it'd actually take to do this, hypothetically.

This engine:
AMT Netherlands Titan

88lb thrust, fits the size x 4 = 352lb, more than enough.

Fuel rate is: 1.53lb / (lbf*hr).

Doesn't look like he's carrying enough fuel to go for 5minutes. When you compare it to actual jetpacks, they have more for fuel tanks. So unless they made a hyper-efficient (above the usual 8:1 ratio) thrust to weight mini jet. I'd say it's fake, trying to drum up publicity to grab attention of some easy investors.

It's not electric as there's a clear heat signature below.
 
Last edited:
Spidey329 said:
Yeah, I swear in the landing shot you can see a brief artifact from removing two suspension wires. Might be YouTube though. Opening sequence with the safety guys is done to imply this is dangerous.


Buuuut. Let's see what it'd actually take to do this, hypothetically.

This engine:
AMT Netherlands Titan

88lb thrust, fits the size x 4 = 352lb, more than enough.

Fuel rate is: 1.53lb / (lbf*hr).

Doesn't look like he's carrying enough fuel to go for 5minutes. When you compare it to actual jetpacks, they have more for fuel tanks. So unless they made a hyper-efficient (above the usual 8:1 ratio) thrust to weight mini jet. I'd say it's fake, trying to drum up publicity to grab attention of some easy investors.
Click to expand...

It's not that you couldn't get some small jet engines, it's that they wouldn't be invisible.

You also have sync issues, balance issues, etc. Putting the thrust under your feet on a narrow platform only enhances all of the control and stability problems.


otherweeb said:
I'm skeptical 'cuz of the landing. Very convenient cut before he touches down.
Click to expand...

The video is a text book example of how to cut a video to be emotionally convincing while minimizing any shots that can be used to for substantive analysis.

It's a publicity stunt.
 
Right around 1:10, you can see what appear to be multiple jets of hot air coming out the bottom of the board. I think the damn thing is real.
 
You clowns just don't get it, this is VERY real. Just last week we had an article about printed magnets and another about clear wood. Now combine RC scale jets with printable magnets with some clear wood and we get this very REAL hoverboard. I'm all in, take my money.

As for the edited video? I edit the videos for our church sermons so that makes me pro plus I got Jesus so yeah this is the real deal.
 
DocSavage said:
Right around 1:10, you can see what appear to be multiple jets of hot air coming out the bottom of the board. I think the damn thing is real.
Click to expand...

I did notice that.

Could be added in, or could be a smaller system for control.

The video just posted does make it look more real - especially the effect on water.

I want to see him fly under a bridge before I believe.

Is the propulsion system really that secret? Some of the commenters are asking about which jet they are using - saying the obvious ones are 24 inches long.

Without more information on the propulsion system, I think it's very reasonable to ask which is more likely - that they invented some kind of new super low profile jet engine or that there is some sort of trickery involved?

Also - why is the "proof" video so terrible? It's very low quality and you can't see any details.

I'm personally ornery enough that if did invent that, I would probably release a bunch of fake seeming videos with questionable details and get everyone excited - then get people to call me a fraud, then blow everyone away with the real deal. If that's the strategy, then bravo.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to watch someone hop from skyscraper to skyscraper in New York on one of these things :D
 
Stiler said:
It's fake, you can see a quadcopter shadow @ 1:37 in the video. They just used a quadcopter to get the point of view shots and then at the end it was simply a guy hanging off a crane or something to land (hence no water splashing when he's landing).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its real or fake, but your statement is irrelevant either way. If real, of course there would be a "chase plane" so to speak filming the thing while in the air. The fact that you see a shadow that looks like a quad-rotor from what appears to be like at least 30-40 feet, means absolutely not a damn thing. Especially considering at 1:24 you can clearly see his shadow in the water.
 
IIRC, what stalled the jet pack (anyone remember the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Olympics?? :D) is that there simply isn't enough fuel to allow to fly for more than a minute, this claimed to have a flight time of 3.55 minutes, looking at the size of it there can't be that much fuel.

Also I couldn't imagine that would be easy to control without flipping, he claims test one, there is no way he "flew" that smoothly on the first test, he's too damn top heavy.

But real or fake, I see it as quite a niche toy of the rich.
 
Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Take my money. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real.
 
shut_up_and_take_my_money-t2.jpg


x 1000
 
I think this could be real, but can't say for sure. Probably uses 4 small jets with the same control algorithm as a quad rotor.

I am calling BS on the 10 min flight time claim... the 3:55 video was a bunch of cuts from different angles, so it could have been as little as a minute of actual flight time.
 
Methadras said:
Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Take my money. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real. Please be real.
Click to expand...

I doubt it'd be affordable. The jet engines I posted cost about $4200 a piece. Sooooo .. It'd be a very expensive toy.
 
Anybody else notice the backpack looking thing that he is wearing? Looks like maybe a fuel tank and maybe the control unit wires going down to the unit itself?
 
I'm thinking BS.

If you want people to believe it through a video, there should be less cuts and more spaces where it'd be hard to fake. That said, if it's real, cool... but it'll cots more than the jetlev to be sure.
 
I mean common sense would tell you that there is not any way to power something like this. No way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top