>>29324054

Let me put it to you like I do the mech fans

>more weight added
>more energy need to make it move
>more space needed for energy
>more weight added
>can you see where this is going

The military designs things to be used for a specific purpose. The batteries you want are designed to fit on small planes, where the battery meets the design requirements. Remember the small planes part? Right, military drones like reapers are huge and...

>your hot pockets are done, go back to Jerking off to cartoons.

>How do I get hold of military drone batteries?
...You mean a gas engine? Go get a weedwhacker off craigslist.

The only batteries the military has that perform significantly better than civilian batteries are the Silver-Zinc batteries that they use in missiles and such, but those aren't rechargeable. Aside from that, they're using the same Li-ion, Ni-Cd and Pb-acid batteries we use for everything.

>>29324054
"Military drone batteries" are essentially a fairly large and expensive UPS. You aren't going to fit that shit on a personal vehicle.

>>29324127
>more weight added
>more energy need to make it move
No shit sherlock, that applies to any aircraft. doesn't mean that hoverboards won't work.
>The batteries you want are designed to fit on small planes, where the battery meets the design requirements. Remember the small planes part? Right, military drones like reapers are huge and...
Nigga a viable hoverboard is like six feet wide, there's space for 200 lbs of batteries
>You mean a gas engine? Go get a weedwhacker off craigslist.
Lots of people have thought of that, it doesn't work because the generator kills off the advantage in efficiency losses and weighs a ton. Only way is to power it direct but then you can't control the thing.
>The only batteries the military has that perform significantly better than civilian batteries are the Silver-Zinc batteries that they use in missiles and such, but those aren't rechargeable. Aside from that, they're using the same Li-ion, Ni-Cd and Pb-acid batteries we use for everything.
C'mon not even 20% better? This is the US military we're talking about, they got flying saucers and shit. Even 20% would make a significant difference seeing as flight time is proportional to the square of the power supplied.
>>29324218
How large and how expensive?

>>29324127
>>your hot pockets are done, go back to Jerking off to cartoons
And ackchually from experience on 4chan and reddit, neckbeards are wholly negative towards hoverboards because the reality of fuckhuge loud propellers for 10 minutes of fly-time doesn't appeal to their pop-sci silent perpetual anti-gravity fantasies

>>29324925
>a viable hoverboard is like six feet wide, there's space for 200 lbs of batteries
Space isn't the issue, it's weight. Those 200 lbs of batteries make it harder to lift the board.

>This is the US military we're talking about,
Exactly. You think they have revolutionary battery tech just sitting there? You know that drone manufacturers are private companies, right?

>flight time is proportional to the square of the power supplied.
Flight time is directly proportional, with a linear relationship, to the total charge of the batteries. 20% better capacity is approximately a 20% longer flight time, assuming optimal lift.

>>29324191
I can confirm this to be absolute truth.

Theres nothing magic in military equipment
Their electronics are way behind consumer shit.

>>29326545
>Flight time is directly proportional, with a linear relationship, to the total charge of the batteries. 20% better capacity is approximately a 20% longer flight time, assuming optimal lift.
You're right, why did I say that? Must have been thinking of thrust.
>Space isn't the issue, it's weight. Those 200 lbs of batteries make it harder to lift the board.
It will still lift though.
>You know that drone manufacturers are private companies, right
Yeah and these private companies develop for the military first because that's a big source of funding for them. Military comes to them asking for something a bit better than commercial and they put out a special line just for them, until the commercial world decides it wants it too, that's how it works.
>>29326770
>F-35 electronics are way behind consumer shit
I find this hard to believe.
>>29326752
>all these "nothing to see here" replies
We all saw the spaceship crash in Roswell, we know you poached their batteries, hand them over!

You need a rotary or gasturbine powering it via a generator. It's actually quite do able, using electric motors rather than direct drive removes many mechanical linkages and reduces weight to the point it offsets efficiency losses.

Sourcing the engine is difficult, compact high efficiency turbines are difficult to buy, there's a RC plane rotary motor that might work, you would need to convert it into 3 or 4 rotors though.

Fuel cells may be able to do it in a year or two.

>>29324054
Ah

Military technology is impressive in some aspects because of specialization beyond the point of affordability or convinience by consumer standards. My PC has a faster CPU than the F22 by an order of magnitude, but a fighter has entire systems of expensive connected devices working together, not just a general purpose CPU.

>>29330765
Is that how all military drones work?

Why doesn't /k/ believe in my hoverboard? Don't you want to shoot stuff while flying around Green Goblin style?

>>29324054
Valence.com
Massive as fuck li-po battery. 60 amp hours on their larger models. Email the sales department and request to buy on in small quantities or as a sample. About £600 each though.

>>29331580
thanks

Would /k/ be interested in buying my hoverboard when it's finished? 15 minute fly-time, £30,000.

>just fuck my extremities up famiglia

>>29328186
Considering the F35 has been in development for nearly two decades, it isn't hard to fathom.

20 years ago, it was 20 years ahead of its time or however long they say military tech is ahead. But they don't have some magical time machine, because now, 20 years later this plane that began development back in the 90's is being produced with the tech it was designed for back then. Whatever is in the works now will have tech commonplace in the 2040's, but when it is actually being produced in the 2040's it doesn't remain 20 years ahead of the curve.


>>29331182
Read ^

As far as consumer computing tech goes, military hardware is nothing special in most instances. However, the nature of dedicated platforms means that you don't need a terabyte of RAM or an 80 core processor... In something like an F22 or F35 you have several (by today's standards) somewhat dated or underpowered systems that literally do one job and are interconnected-- as such it isn't hard to fathom how software issues in the billion lines of code that power the F35 can be a major headache to sort out.

>>29331580
Those have only about 1/3 the power density of the latest panasonic li-ions in the tesla cars.

>>29331291
No, there's not really any large military quadcopter drones yet. They will probably be common in 5 years. Airbus proposed a hybrid airliner though, multiple electric motors powered by a single gas turbine work well. Hard to say if fuel cells or new battery tech will win in the end.

>>29332782
If military tech is nothing special then why can't China copy the F-35?

>>29324054
/k/ IS A BOARD DEVOTED TO WEAPONS
>>/toy/

Could a hoverboard be useful as a parachute replacement? Not only does it work at lower altitude but paratroopers can fly back into the plane after they're done fighting. This solves three paratrooper problems, having to jump from high altitude means it's harder to get to the target zone, floating down in a big parachute is an easy target and of course once the mission is over they can go back to their hoverboards and fly back into the plane. All this combines the high capacity of transport aircraft with the VTOL capacity of helicopters.