News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by theklub on Thursday July 30, 2009 @03:44PM (#732916)
I'll be the first to say that is awesome and I hope its not vaporware.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by jseifer on Thursday July 30, 2009 @05:40PM (#733136)
This does look like a ton of fun, though the "hose" attachment didn't seem to go too far. It's also not cheap. But kudos to the developer of the thing! It's an incredibly original invention and application. Plus, since it runs in the water and is attached to something you can't go too high and there's a smaller risk of injury.

Also, I chuckled at the pun of calling this "vaporware" :)

Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by pshc on Thursday July 30, 2009 @05:56PM (#733173)
"incredibly original"

Well, we can't be sure about that: ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Sunshine

Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by TallGuyShort on Thursday July 30, 2009 @06:13PM (#733206)
I'm sure with a more powerful engine (which is planned), longer hoses will become possible. However, it says that the drag caused by the boat added significant stability during forward flight, so a short hose attachment actually increases the quality of the flight.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by biohacker42 on Thursday July 30, 2009 @03:56PM (#732934)
If it's not too expensive I can definitely see this becoming very popular. Looks way more fun then a jetsky.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by yan on Thursday July 30, 2009 @04:03PM (#732956)
They say it's planned to cost $130,000. You can get quite a few jet-skis for that.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by mcav on Thursday July 30, 2009 @04:07PM (#732961)
Water-propelled, not really water-powered.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by jpwagner on Thursday July 30, 2009 @05:33PM (#733128)
wait, what does that say about your definition of "high-powered"?
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by paulgb on Thursday July 30, 2009 @06:03PM (#733187)
I'm not a physicist, but this paragraph struck me as incorrect (or at least misleading):

Li, however, figured that if he attached a hose to his pack, and put the engine and water pump in a separate vessel that dragged behind him, he could seriously reduce his weight, and therefore the amount of thrust needed to stay aloft.

If the engine and pump were part of the jet pack, even if the engine and water pump were weightless, wouldn't it be impossible to get enough thrust to provide lift? The propellant is being thrown back in the direction it came, so doesn't the momentum cancel out?

Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by gchpaco on Thursday July 30, 2009 @08:15PM (#733415)
There's a great deal of extra momentum being added through the engine and water pump that you're not accounting for.
Re:A Water-Powered Jetpack by devin on Thursday July 30, 2009 @08:45PM (#733468)
That thing would rip your feet off if you got in its way.