I told you /sci/, I told you that hoverboards are the next big thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TnqBM_KUyE
>>7863349
And what does this prove?
>>7863349
>freedom
>Freedom
>FREEDOM
>dreams
>Dreams
>DREAMSSSS
TOPVAPOURWAREKEK
>>7863349
Why is there a multi company and international race for this?
Normal skate boards will always be better for tricks than hoverboards so there is no appeal for the teenager demographic.
I can assure you that no adult will ever use a hoverboard to go to their job or whatever, so there is also no mass adult appeal.
At best, the only demographic I can see buying this are college students who may use it to move around campus but college students are usually tight in money and very vew will waste money on shit like this when they could just walk.
Has ANY company done any kind of market research before pouring millions of dollars in research for this shit?
At least the hendo guys I understand because they didn't use their own money, they stole money from people on kickstarter so I see why the wouldn't care about it and just waste in novelty crap, but a lot of companies have used their own funds for this shit and it completely boggles my mind.
>>7863371
Helps if you don't view everything in terms of "how many sheckles can I make"
>>7863427
Yeah, I'm sure it helps if you are an underage faggot with no kind of idea about how the world works.
You figured out why your mommy gives the store clerk those green papers when buying your autism pills?
Nothing is free, specially not scientific research.
>>7863371
Is bungee jumping practical? Do people make money off of charging people to bungee jump?
>>7863437
>Is bungee jumping practical?
No, but the technology to make bungee jumping real already existed when it started being popular so no millions of dollars were poured into research for bungee jumping technology or whatever.
> Do people make money off of charging people to bungee jump?
I'm sure the equipment is not free, sperg.
>>7863439
>No, but the technology to make bungee jumping real already existed when it started being popular so no millions of dollars were poured into research for bungee jumping technology or whatever.
Well as you can see the hoverboard clearly works so I don't know where you are going with that argument
>I'm sure the equipment is not free, sperg.
No shit sherlock, starting a business costs money, congratulations you graduated business 101! Now answer the fucking question, do they make money?
looks super unstable, and is probably noisy as hell
>>7863447
> where you are going with that argument
I am saying that it costed the companies millions of dollars in research, and there is no mass market appeal at all. At best some random hobbyist with too much money will buy it for fun, use it once, then sell it on ebay.
>do they make money?
I already said the equipment is not free. What do you think that means?
>>7863448
I agree they shouldn't have used ducted fans, I guess they were going for the whole "appears to be antigravity" look but it really fucks up performance and creates a shitload of noise. However it's still a step forward considering they managed 6 minutes of hover time. That's what they claim anyway.
>>7863451
>Bunch of fans and batteries
>millions of dollars in research
Okay kid
>there is no mass market appeal at all.
You are just embarrassing yourself now, are you really trying to say that something is not worth marketing unless it has mass appeal?
>I already said the equipment is not free
That is a ridiculous nonsensical response, of course the equipment is not free, why do you think that answers my question of whether bungee jump organizers turn a profit or not?
>>7863451
The faggot ran away without answering the question, what a surprise.
>>7863457
>something is not worth marketing unless it has mass appeal?
Not if you invest a ton of money on it. Becuase of the limited marketability, unless you sell this shit at like 10k a piece, you will never turn a profit.
A good example of something I would agree with is with an artist who made a mechanical prime generator, It was a sculpture with a small computer and when you pressed a button, it would count up to the next prime and stop there, until you pressed the button again.
The guy sold like 75 of them online for maybe 100$ and that was it.
That is perfectly fine because he didn't use too much money on that. The only money he used was to get the materials, which was immediately paid by the paying client.
If computers had not existed and he had to research electronics and algorithms and he had to waste years of his time and millions of dollars then I would say he fucked up because somethng like that will never have the kind of mass appeal it needs to make a profit.
>why do you think that answers my question of whether bungee jump organizers turn a profit or not?
Because if the equipment isn't free, and you are lending your equipment to a customer, then you better make your money back by charging the customer a small fee.
>>7863349
>meme hoverboard attempt number 215419
yeah they totally came up with this years ago
they absolutely did not just jump on the bandwagon to cash in on the shit-gobbling normies buying/crowdfunding every new flavor-of-the-month gadget under the sun
what a bunch of personality-devoid faggots
>>7863436
Never said it was anon, sorry you're so poor in spirit you can't budget cool shit with your clutch. Someone is clearly paying for it.
Make sure that when the day comes that you realize you've wasted your life as a wage slave, that you take out as many fellow goys as you can when you shoot up the office. While you cucks do serve a role for the society that the people who follow their dreams live in, I've got zero sympathy for someone who's only worth has a dollar sign
>>7863469
>le filthy jew xD memerooni
Why am I not surprised.
>>7863465
Sculpture is completely different to a hoverboard. You claim that a hoverboard will be of a similar marketability despite having zero proof, I say it will be much more marketable and I actually have proof in the huge pop-sci obsession with such machines. It's like light sabres, they are utterly useless and any real working model will likely cost thousands but if you did manage to make one you can bet you will be rolling in cash before Lucasfilm comes and sues your ass.
>>7863468
There has only been four attempts, the Hendo hoverboard, Lexus hoverboard, Omni hoverboard and Segway hoverboard. Of these two were admittedly advertising stunts but they did work, one doesn't even hover but millions of people still love it and one flew high and far, wasn't a meme stunt (he doesn't even have a kickstarter) but lasted only a minute.
>>7863472
> Why am I not surprised.
Prolly much for the same reason I'm not: it comes with time. Prolly around the time people are goofing off on their hoverboards in your yard
>>7863480
Lets analyze it then.
Kids:
This is the only demographic that I see could actually buy this. Mainly because I see kids buying shoes with small wheels, which are as pointless as hoverboards. I say little kids will buy this shit for a while, then there will be a major accident and then that is the end of the hoverboard.
Teens:
As I said, hoverboards do not have the same freedom of doing the kind of tricks as a normal skateboard. Without that, there is no edgy/cool appeal that draws teens to buy shit on mass. I say one 13 year old will buy one, take it to the skate park, and get laughed at and bullied for the rest of his life for being a pussy faggot who is not man enough to get a real skateboard.
Adults:
Most working adults don't go to parks. They would only buy a new 'vehicle' if it would mean that they could efficiently move around to their jobs, houses, events, etc. The hoverboard is no better transportation than a skateboard and not many adults move around in skateboards so again, not many adults will buy it.
Young adults (18 - 22):
Usually tight in money, as I said, maybe a handful of college kids will buy one to move around class until they get too fat for it to even lift them.
That is all, I believe.
However, you may argue that I am assuming a lot of shit, and I am. So why don't you do the same list and point out the reasons why you think these demographics would buy, on mass, a hoverboard.
As it stands, I only see little 8 year old Jimmy using one to look cool to little 7 year old Susie. Just before, skate board Johnny comes around and fucks Susie right in the pussy, while Jimmy spergs out about this superior technology.
>>7863349
>dat ultra hype
Don't care.
>>7863497
>Most working adults don't go to parks
What's most? 90%? That's still 30 million in the USA alone who would do it. Set up a park in Nevada or something and you will get visitors
>They would only buy a new 'vehicle' if it would mean that they could efficiently move around to their jobs
Again you're continuing to be clouded by autism, There are so many bored middle aged men out there who would pay £10,000 to fuck around in their back yard on a hoverboard. large drones cost around £8,000 fly for 20 minutes yet people still buy and fly them for fun.
>>7863371
>Normal skate boards will always be better for tricks than hoverboards so there is no appeal for the teenager demographic.
normal skateboards are for FAGGOTS
>I can assure you that no adult will ever use a hoverboard to go to their job or whatever, so there is also no mass adult appeal.
who should I trust?
>random faggot on 4chan
>billion dollar companies and investors
no thanks.
It's funny how neckbeards can sit back and trash someone else's work when they themselves have nothing to their name.
>>7863349
>ArcaMattress
>>7863349
>foot slips
>leg gets butchered to shreds
>fall off
>board flies away 35mph down a hill
>start moving in a direction at increasing speeds
>only way to stop is to jump off and say goodbye to board
What a retarded idea
>>7863572
>foot slips
What is a strap?
>leg gets butchered to shreds
What is a mesh cover?
>>7863597
>not understanding the board requires free-flow of air
>Strap yourself to the board.
>Lose control, head into traffic
>Cant jump off cuz strapped to board
>Attempt to jump off, stuck hanging on side of board
The OP idea is confused on whether its plain stupid, suicidal, or both.
>>7863349
If you buy this AMAZING product all of your dreams will come true. FREEDOM.
>>7863632
A mesh small enough to stop your fingers from going through yet big enough to let air through won't hurt performance
As a cyclist I understand what you are talking about, that's why we now use clips instead of straps.
Why is /sci/ so negative? Instead of picking out failures why not look at ways to improve it?
>FREEDOM and DREAMS
>awkward as fuck test flight footage traveling at blistering .5mph
>inspiring music
>"slightly" larger than a skateboard
Is this the next great kikestarter scam?
>>7863349
>massive ass, long ass and thick ass fucking rectangle
It was too big to be called a board. Massive, thick, heavy and far too rough. Indeed, it was like a heap of raw autism.
>>7863436
this
this is why gravitational waves were made up to continue jobs.
>>7863684
>>7863675
>>7863782
Aside from improvements in batteries and materials, there's not much a hoverboard can improve in. Thrust is still V*dm/dt. (Yes ground effect does play a role)
>>7863349
Who gives a shit.
Where's my damn jetpack?
>>7863782
Unless you can somehow apply Moore's law to the density of Earth's atmosphere, I'm pretty sure there's no comparison here.
>>7863684
>Post this
>Wake up the next day
>Check this post
>No one understood the reference
Fuck this gay earth. I thought this was a fucking anime forum.
IF YOU DON'T WATCH ANIME LEAVE 4CHAN RIGHT FUCKING NOW FUCKING MORONS. THERE ARE NON-ANIME SCIENCE FORUMS OUT THERE SO FUCK OFF
>>7864662
More like a boring and lame reference.
>>7864716
>moeshit lover detected
>>7863349
Oh look, it's another high-speed fire hazard.
>>7864035
>>7864047
I just improved my UAV massively with a little calculus. Got the idea from the rocket equation. Get the payload fraction just right and you an maximize flight time. And I can tell you that a) there is a new breed of batteries with 30% more power coming from China soon and b) military batteries are way ahead but they aren't available to the public yet.
>>7863782
yeah, because we're absolutely on the brink of inventing a new and revolutionary way of generating HEAPS of thrust, which will be comparable to the invention of the microprocessor and its effect on computer size
except that we aren't, and technology for generating thrust has been well researched for decades
think before you post, you stupid fuckwit
>Sci
>discussing the usability of a product
>not talking about the science behind it
mods.. what are your jobs actually?
>>7864857
>the science behind it
What science? They said what they did in the video.
They just put 20 propellers inside a 3D rectangle and started flying around with the power of their autism.
>>7864856
So you clearly failed to read my post above. While you who have never done a technical study of the hoverboard concept sits back and scoffs at the idea is impossible I who have done a technical study found that the minimum power density required to stay in the air for up to 30 minutes is within the capabilities of current lithium polymer batteries. As I said it's like rockets, losers such as you sat back and declared there was no way a rocket would ever have the power to make it to the moon without ever having done the maths, it just "made sense" to you because that is how we do science right? whereas visionaries such as Tsiolkovsky actually bothered to do the maths instead of dismissing the idea out of hand as ludicrous and thanks to him we we went to the moon. You just need to build the hoverboard right, they never made it out of ground effect because they made the poor choice of using ducted fans. Someone else who chose propellers actually flew far and high on his board. Als oas well as batteries there is research going on on small onboard power generation from micro gas turbines etc, Use your fucking imagination, why people like you are in STEM I cannot understand, you're not pro-active at all. Like if I'm an employer and I give you a problem are you going to tell me you think it's a waste of time without doing any sort of feasibility study? I'd sack you.
>>7864914
>it's like rockets, losers such as you sat back and declared there was no way a rocket would ever have the power to make it to the moon without ever having done the maths, it just "made sense" to you because that is how we do science right?
except that rockets are a technology, one that you can research and advance
hoverboards are not technology, they are a product based on scotchtaping together available technology, like propellers, electric engines and controlling software
I really don't know why you're comparing aerospace engineering as a whole with a company reeking of buzzwords and kikestarter bandwagon behavior
you're acting like these people are the epitome of creative engineering and entrepreneurship, when in fact they're just mindlessly following what everybody else is doing already
I mean do you really think any of these buzzword-spouting hipster collectives, which contribute nothing but their own take on the BttF-hoverboard-craze, will end up advancing the fields of technology that they're leeching off of??
just look at the video
fucking look at it
it's 20 ducted fans strapped on a board
they can't shut their mouth up about "FREEDOM" and "ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT" while the damn thing is crawling alone at an inch per second
the whole video is just a single entity of pure buzzword
nothing will come out of the "brainchild" of these "inventors", and once the next normie flavor of the month gadget comes along you'll never hear from them again
>>7863349
>slightly larger than a skateboard
holy fucking kek, it's the size of a suitcase
>>7864914
and just to clarify
my initial post you quoted was never about hoverboards being an impossible concept
it's about the other anon posting a picture of the first computer as if it has some kind of merit in the discussion
computers were rapidly advanced once we got the hang of miniaturizing curcuits while increasing their computational power
but aerospace engineering is past that stage(just like computers by the way)
we're out of RAPID, FULL WARP SPEED innovations(like microprocessors once were to computers) that radically solve problems which were once thought impossible to solve
hoverboards are not in a stage where we're juuuuust waiting for THE ONE technical thing to be worked out so that everything will suddenly become okay
so there's no point in posting this damn picture, because its argument relies on exactly that premise
I want to be a jet pack trooper like the ones from Red Alert though
>>7864977
Wow here is the problem you are arrogant as fuck. By your logic rockets were also existing tech scochtaped together, the de laval nozzle was in use in steam engines in the 1800s and rockets had existed for centuries. You're view seems to be that making a six foot board that can lift a person is something that could have been done as soon as propellers were invented well you're fucking dumb because the high torque yet small brushless motors, carbon fibre propellers and lithium polymer batteries that enabled the Canadian guy to fly only came on the commercial market recently. Like as someone who works with large multirotors fuck you for sitting on your fat ass saying it's easy. To make it lift more weight you need bigger props but it's harder to control the speed of these even by computer because of the larger moment of inertia therefore the two solutions are to make ultra light carbon props and high torque brushless motors. I agree that the arcaboard is a bit poor mainly due to their baffling use of small ducted fans however the Canadian omni board I believe is a genuine step forward seeing as it actually flies properly. The closest thing that ever existed was the US army hillier flying platform and that was hard to fly around because as there was no technology in existence to actively stabilize it it had to be designed to be inherently stable which unfortunately gave it a tendency to stay in the same place. microprocessor controlled brushless motor active stabilization is a huge advancement over this if you can't see this well you shouldn't be in STEM
>>7865013
The power supply isn't the issue contrary to popular belief, we have improving batteries, , micro gas turbines, wankel engines, the main issue is control. You need electronics to control it but gas to power it, how do we effectively integrate this? The military has UAVs that are hybrid powered by wankel engines that can hover for hours but of course nobody is allowed to know how they work just yet.
>>7864977
I agree the video is dumb hipster bullshit but the basic concept is still not bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfa9HrieUyQ
>>7865298
stop raging you autist
your hoverboard dream is just a shitty trend which comes from shitty movies and probably vidya
it serves no real purpose, other than being a toy
also stop appealing to conspiracies you sound like a schizo
>>7866707
>it serves no real purpose, other than being a toy
For the last time, why is that an argument as to why it is not worth developing? You're the real autist if you can only see in terms of what is useful and what isn't. By your logic no-one should ever spend money on developing video games because they serve no real purpose beyond being a toy.
>video starts with some cringy appeal to human greatness or whatever
INTO
THE
TRASH
>>7867800
Hoverboards will make humanity great. This is bigger than the Apollo Program.
>>7867800
I muted it, do you actually listen to these videos?
>>7867849
I agree the promotional bullshit is standard with every KS video, doesn't mean the product itself is bad. However in this case it is bad but only because they used ducted fans, the concept is still good.
Only one thing. ION CLOUD HOVERBOARDS
>>7867926
ion engines are not anywhere near as powerful enough.
Oh wow, Arcaspace is actually a legit aerospace company having stratospheric rocket contracts with ESA. Where did it all go so wrong for them?
What's the point of this? It looks like it doesn't go up very high and is somewhat slow.
It's a gimmick product.
If I want speed in something smaller than a car bikes, scooters, skateboards, rollerskates, or all better and probably cheaper.
Any vehicle that depends their flight time on batteries goes into the trash. Unless it's operated by a combustion engine and needs to lift the weight of a human being + the hoverboard itself, you can count on that your flight won't last more than a few minutes.
Hoverboard is the dumbest fucking meme of the century
>dude it's 2016 where is my useless piece of shit toy lmao
>>7868192
>but muh sekrit military battery technology that's totally right around the corner
>>7863349
How is this any better than the rideable multicopters that people have already been making for years?
>>7867995
I'm not talking about ion engines. I'm talking about EHD thrusters
>>7863349
>Romanian CEO
Feeling proud.
>>7868192
You can fly for up to half an hour on battery power alone. Everyone always underestimates batteries. Their board is shit purely because they chose tiny ducted fans. A guy who used 26" props actually flew around properly.
>>7868198
You don't believe that the military has batteries that are better than the consumer market? Okay.
>>7868385
Coincidentally the guy who made the aforementioned 26" propeller hoverboard also happened to be Romanian
>>7868211
Ionocraft can't lift even their own power source.
>>7868196
I'm sorry that your autistic mind want's to see the world stay boring and serious. Some people want to have fun. Get over yourself.
>>7863349
Feet fedora
>>7868385
They all have a hard on for Coanda.
>>7868894
Once upon a time I made a thread on /diy/ discussing the possibility of delivery drones and they all howled at me
>FUCKING LUDICROUS
>DRONES CANT LIFT SHIT!
>GOVERNMENT WILL BAN IT!
>CRIMINALS WILL SHOOT IT DOWN
>NOBODY WILL WASTE MONEY ON THIS BULLSHIT!!!!!
Then this happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXo_d6tNWuY
Moral of the story is that dismissing future technology ideas will always end in embarrassment.
Yall faggots just ignoring the hover technology, hoverboard is just a smaller flying car.
>mfw
>>7864844
>Get the payload fraction just right and you an maximize flight time.
I ran through this exercise myself about a year ago for battery-powered aircraft, turns out the result is the same for both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft - if you have some predetermined aircraft weight, and a yet-undetermined battery weight, the optimum sized battery for maximum endurance (that is, time) is twice that of the basic aircraft (that is, 2/3 of your aircraft weight should be battery). For range there was no optimum (more is better, period), and with a consumable fuel (i.e. the weight and power draw declines the longer you run the aircraft), there is no optimum for either range or endurance (more fuel is always better). I neglected secondary effects - such as the possibility of needing larger, heavier motors and stronger airframe structure to carry the extra battery weight, so in practice my optimization certainly isn't perfect. But it's a fun thought experiment, anyways, and the math was pretty simple all things told.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading#Power_required
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node97.html
>>7863675
>incredibly slim
>>7868928
>you're wrong because Amazon is marketing a prototype a library system that won't succeed
m'hoverboard
