Support NeoGAF

[Nhranaghacon]

Could a Mod add the word 'On' to the thread tile so that it may read 'Working on' - then remove this citation? Thank you!

It not only needs to Hover, it needs to have Hover thrusters and Hover Breaks, while handling just as good as any other roadster. With 0 Drift unless the drivers wants drift.

The whole hover package.

Elon Musk tells Joe Rogan he wants the new Tesla Roadster to hover​

Elon Musk tells Joe Rogan he wants the new Tesla Roadster to hover

Using SpaceX rocket thrusters

www.theverge.com

But now he says he’s considering using the thrusters to make the Roadster hover, too.

“I want it to hover, and I was trying to figure out how to make this thing hover without, you know, killing people,” Musk told Joe Rogan in a new episode of of the Joe Rogan Experience released Thursday. “Maybe it can hover like a meter above the ground, or something like that."

 

[triplestation]

 

[Nhranaghacon]

I assume, since the Military started providing non-fuel thrusters to the public for purchase - something akin to the thrusters used
on a flyboard air could be converted to use on a Tesla Roadster, particularly if you added enough of them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

People can barely even drive a regular car.

 

[poppabk]

I'm not sure this is a good idea.

 

[Spaceman292]

I assume, since the Military started providing non-fuel thrusters to the public for purchase - something akin to the thrusters used
on a flyboard air could be converted to use on a Tesla Roadster, particularly if you added enough of them.

What the fuck how long has this EXISTED? AND NO I'm NOT talking about the shitty micra.

 

[Sidney Prescott]

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

 

[T8SC]

 

[ManofOne]

It's theoretically possible.

 

[Cravis]

Next project once the hover car is finished. Do it for us Elon.

 

[lrt75914]

I don't suppose he told Rogan how he wants to achieve that?

I assume, since the Military started providing non-fuel thrusters to the public for purchase - something akin to the thrusters used
on a flyboard air could be converted to use on a Tesla Roadster, particularly if you added enough of them.

What the hell is a non-fuel thruster?

 

[The Hamburglar]

People can barely even drive a regular car.

Some of us aren’t regular people.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

I don't suppose he told Rogan how he wants to achieve that?


What the hell is a non-fuel thruster?

Missile Turbines powered by non hydrazine grade fuel. Or batteries.

 

[lrt75914]

Missile Turbines powered by non hydrazine grade fuel. Or batteries.

Could you be a bit more specific. What the hell is a missile turbine powered by non hydrazine grade fuel? Do you mean a jet engine running on regular jet fuel or on some type of hypergolic fuel? And I doubt they could be using e-thrusters with the energy density of modern day batteries being as low as it is.

 

[TheMan]

Well good luck. I'm sure a system like that would drain even the best batteries reaaal quick

 

[Nhranaghacon]

Could you be a bit more specific. What the hell is a missile turbine powered by non hydrazine grade fuel? Do you mean a jet engine running on regular jet fuel or on some type of hypergolic fuel? And I doubt they could be using e-thrusters with the energy density of modern day batteries being as low as it is.

The standard propellent for a missile grade turbine is rocket fuel, Hydrazine is typical standard. These turbines can run autonomously on batteries alone, or standard kerosene based fuel of course - as anything can be rigged up to run on fuel; but the need for highly volatile fuel to utilize these turbines Zapata is using specifically has been mitigated as the U.S. Military made purchasable fully electric missile grade jet turbines consumer purchasable as the technology had phased itself into commercial viability once it was no longer considered military grade.

 

[lrt75914]

The standard propellent for a missile grade turbine is rocket fuel, Hydrazine is typical standard. These turbines can run autonomously on batteries alone, or standard kerosene based fuel of course - as anything can be rigged up to run on fuel; but the need for highly volatile fuel to utilize these turbines Zapata is using specifically has been mitigated as the U.S. Military made purchasable fully electric missile grade jet turbines consumer purchasable as the technology had phased itself into commercial viability and was no longer considered military grade.

Dude you are talking in riddles. A turbine is a rotary device that extracts energy from fluids and is usually part of a jet engine but not a rocket engine. There are some missiles - the tomahawk comes to mind - that use a jet engine for extended range. I'm not aware of any jet engine that actually uses hydrazine. Furthermore, hydrazine is not the standard rocket fuel but rather a rocket fuel that is typically used for thrusters or emergency abort systems since it's hypergolic and delivers instant thrust. And not everything can be rigged up to run on fuel willy nilly and the jet engines that zapata is using run on bog standard jet fuel.
I'm also not sure what the hell a fully electric missile grade jet turbine is supposed to be....that just sounds like an impeller...

Edit:
I'm still not sure what you mean by non-fuel thrusters

 

[Great Hair]

 

[Nhranaghacon]

Dude you are talking in riddles. A turbine is a rotary device that extracts energy from fluids and is usually part of a jet engine but not a rocket engine. There are some missiles - the tomahawk comes to mind - that use a jet engine for extended range. But I'm not aware of any jet engine that actually uses hydrazine. Furthermore, hydrazine is not the standard rocket fuel but rather a rocket fuel that i typically used for thrusters or emergency abort systems since it's hypergolic and delivers instant thrust. And not everything can be rigged up to run on fuel willy nilly and the jet engines that zapata is using run on bog standard jet fuel.
I'm also not sure what the hell a fully electric missile grade jet turbine is supposed to be....that just sounds like an impeller...

No, you essentially just surmised EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID as if I had not previously cited thrusters and rocket turbines.

Then you needlessly proceeded to explain what a turbine is, which was never in question to begin with.

And you did this as a slight at me.

Then you proceed to attempt to negate the use of Hydrazine, which has been the primary propellent fuel in Voyager 1 Space Rocket furthermore you attempt to negate this by citing it is not mainline propellent used for propulsion in spacecraft and is relegated to simple Emergency Abort Systems.

While in fact Voyager 1 primarily uses Hydrazine, particularly after lift and as it's primary space propellent.

Voyager 1 was constructed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.[18][19][20] It has 16 hydrazine thrusters, three-axis stabilization gyroscopes, and
referencing instruments to keep the probe's radio antenna pointed toward Earth.

NASA estimates that the Voyagers’ fuel efficiency is upwards of 30,000 miles per gallon of hydrazine.

Either way you ultimately attempt to imply fully electric missile turbines aren't a thing simply because I rightfully cited these component's as military grade.

U.S. Military has a history of releasing technology to American Consumers, technologies that the public would typically deem radically superior, once a replacement technology has adequately presented itself within the U.S Military and once the previous technology has become viable to open market.

Zapata, in the original interviews cited he is using these same electric low altitude missile turbines, that originally were utilized for low speed, low altitude missile systems as the U.S. military
made the technology available and purchasable by the consumer the previous year because it is either something we can readily create or invent ourselves.

Hydrazine Fuel

It is as standard mixed into fuel for the Lockheed U-2 “Dragon Lady”

 

[lrt75914]

No, you essentially just surmised EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID as if I had not previously cited thrusters and rocket turbines.

Then you needlessly proceeded to explain what a turbine is, which was never in question to begin with.

Maybe I wouldn't need to explain this if you didn't keep using the word in a wrong context. Neither rockets nor thrusters
have a turbine.

Then you proceed to attempt to negate the use of Hydrazine, which has been the primary propellent fuel in Voyager 1 Space Rocket furthermore you attempt to negate this by citing it is not mainline propellent used for propulsion in spacecraft and is relegated to simple Emergency Abort Systems.

While in fact Voyager 1 primarily uses Hydrazine, particularly after lift and as it's primary space propellent.

Voyager 1 was constructed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.[18][19][20] It has 16 hydrazine thrusters, three-axis stabilization gyroscopes, and
referencing instruments to keep the probe's radio antenna pointed toward Earth.

NASA estimates that the Voyagers’ fuel efficiency is upwards of 30,000 miles per gallon of hydrazine.

I never said that hydrazine wasn't used as propellant in the aerospace industry. In fact I pointed out that hydrazine was used for satellite thrusters or emergency abort systems. What I did say is that is hydrazine is one propellant among many that is being used in the aerospace industry. However it is not being used as fuel for a turbo jet engine.

Either way you ultimately attempt to imply fully electric missile turbines aren't a thing simply because I rightfully cited these component's as military grade.

U.S. Military has a history of releasing technology to American Consumers, technologies that the public would typically deem radically superior, once a replacement technology has adequately presented itself within the U.S Military and once the previous technology has become viable to open market.

Electric missile turbines are as much of a thing as electric combustion chambers - they don't exist. And I never said that the U.S. Military does not have a history of sharing their technology with American companies. Yet you still can't convince me that they are selling nonsense that doesn't exist.

Zapata, in the original interviews cited he is using these same electric low altitude missile turbines, that originally were utilized for low speed, low altitude missile systems as the U.S. military
made the technology available and purchasable by the consumer the previous year because it is either something we can readily create or invent ourselves.

"Zapata Racing claims that it allows flight up to an altitude of 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and has a top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph). It also has 10 minutes' endurance.[3] The load capacity is 102 kg (225 lb). The "jet-powered hoverboard" is powered by five turbines and is fueled by kerosene."

By the looks of it the dude is using 5 hobby grade jet engines for lift and two electrical impellers for yaw. That stuff has been used by rc pilots for years and years and isn't some military grade tech.

Hydrazine Fuel

It is as standard mixed into fuel for the Lockheed U-2 “Dragon Lady”

Did you even read the Wikipedia article? The U-12 and F-16 use hydrazine in their emergency power units, not the actual jet engine.

 

[EverydayBeast]

 

[Kenpachii]

Pretty sick at how we are getting closer towards hover boards every day now.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

Maybe I wouldn't need to explain this if you didn't keep using the word in a wrong context. Neither rockets nor thrusters
have a turbine.


I never said that hydrazine wasn't used as propellant in the aerospace industry. In fact I pointed out that hydrazine was used for satellite thrusters or emergency abort systems. What I did say is that is hydrazine is one propellant among many that is being used in the aerospace industry. However it is not being used as fuel for a turbo jet engine.


Electric missile turbines are as much of a thing as electric combustion chambers - they don't exist. And I never said that the U.S. Military does not have a history of sharing their technology with American companies. Yet you still can't convince me that they are selling nonsense that doesn't exist.


"Zapata Racing claims that it allows flight up to an altitude of 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and has a top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph). It also has 10 minutes' endurance.[3] The load capacity is 102 kg (225 lb). The "jet-powered hoverboard" is powered by five turbines and is fueled by kerosene."

By the looks of it the dude is using 5 hobby grade jet engines for lift and two electrical impellers for yaw. That stuff has been used by rc pilots for years and years and isn't some military grade tech.


Did you even read the Wikipedia article? The U-12 and F-16 use hydrazine in their emergency power units, not the actual jet engine.

Did you not precisely claim Jets are not Thrusters? So the thruster jet isn't real either then? HAH, funny you seem intent on picking an argument - that you can't win, based solely on the fact that you have no case and some off beaten need/desire to argue with someone who was not in the wrong in any way shape or form. Then you relegate yourself to falling back on semantics, with glaring inefficiencies to your own claim.

You continue to makes this pointless argument, based purely on semantics while making 10 flawed statement's concurrent.

But continue to modify my hyper url's, and ignore that Voyager 1 ONLY UTILIZES JETS THAT IN FACT CONSUME HYDRAZINE
while arguing jet's don't consume Hydrazine

And continue to claim that Rocket's do not have turbines as standard:

Rocket turbine engine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continue to ignore the boundless massive faults in your own argument, while needlessly attacking line item everything I've said

and I will happily look at this as you originally intended, which is what this is.. a pointless waste of my time and personal slight at me built solely on your desire to argue inefficiently... and I will block you next time not only for instigating arguments for the sake of nothing but arguments sake but for making semantically incorrect, frivolous contextual claims that waste my time.


And those are U.S. Military grade low altitude all electric "Micro Jet" thrusters modified to use with Flyboard Air - "Micro Jets" as they were originally labeled and sold to Zapata by the U.S. Military in the 2017 interview.

All I know is, if I were to post "US has created Self Replicating, Self Propelled, Bio-Hybrid Nanotechnology" based on this outing - you would look at the source material and simply insist I was a liar.

Researchers build microscopic biohybrid robots propelled by muscles, nerves

Researchers have developed soft robotic devices driven by neuromuscular tissue that triggers when stimulated by light—bringing mechanical engineering one step closer to developing autonomous biobots.

techxplore.com

Which is why I intend to quickly block you now.

 

[Wheeljack539]

Pretty sick at how we are getting closer towards hover boards every day now.

So if Back to the Future 2 was off in regards the Cubs by a year maybe they were just 10 off for hover conversions.

 

[ThePhantomKnight]

It's theoretically possible.

*entirely

 

[lrt75914]

Did you not precisely claim Jets are not Thrusters? So the thruster jet isn't real either then? HAH, funny you seem intent on picking an argument - that you can't win, based solely on the fact that you have no case and some off beaten need/desire to argue with someone who was not in the wrong in any way shape or form. Then you relegate yourself to falling back on semantics, with glaring inefficiencies to your own claim.

You continue to makes this pointless argument, based purely on semantics while making 10 flawed statement's concurrent.

But continue to modify my hyper url's, and ignore that Voyager 1 ONLY UTILIZES JETS THAT IN FACT CONSUME HYDRAZINE
while arguing jet's don't consume Hydrazine

And continue to claim that Rocket's do not have turbines as standard:

Rocket turbine engine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continue to ignore the boundless massive faults in your own argument, while needlessly attacking line item everything I've said

and I will happily look at this as you originally intended, which is what this is.. a pointless waste of my time and personal slight at me built solely on your desire to argue inefficiently... and I will block you next time not only for instigating arguments for the sake of nothing but arguments sake but for making semantically incorrect, frivolous contextual claims that waste my time.


And those are U.S. Military grade low altitude all electric "Micro Jet" thrusters modified to use with Flyboard Air - "Micro Jets" as they were originally labeled and sold to Zapata by the U.S. Military in the 2017 interview.

All I know is, if I were to post "US has created Self Replicating, Self Propelled, Bio-Hybrid Nanotechnology" based on this outing - you would look at the source material and simply insist I was a liar.

Researchers build microscopic biohybrid robots propelled by muscles, nerves

Researchers have developed soft robotic devices driven by neuromuscular tissue that triggers when stimulated by light—bringing mechanical engineering one step closer to developing autonomous biobots.

techxplore.com

Which is why I intend to quickly block you now.

1. Thruster are not jet turbines
2. Voyager 1 & 2 use hydrazine for their thrusters
3. That is not a rocket engine but rather a rocket/jet engine hybrid.
4. Those are not military grade anything. They are hobby grade jet engines
5. You need to read a book or two

 

[Nhranaghacon]

1. Thruster are not jet turbines
2. Voyager 1 & 2 use hydrazine for their thrusters
3. That is not a rocket engine but rather a rocket/jet engine hybrid.
4. Those are not military grade anything. They are hobby grade jet engines
5. You need to read a book or two

Blocked

 

[ManaByte]

If Elon wants to do it, he probably will.

 

[bender]

Keep the terrible ideas [strike]rolling[/strike] hovering, Elon.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

And for any who may be further interested - as standard. Thrusters have been known and cited as "Jet's" for ages.

Furthermore, they have been referred to as "Rockets" for ages also - any attempt to state otherwise is dubious at best.

Take this sample for Instance... where the Ion Thruster.. as far away from a traditional turbine powered actuator as I could find.. is referred to as a Jet... dismantling the previous claim that
Thrusters are not Jets.

Ion thruster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ion thruster efficiency is the kinetic energy of the exhaust jet emitted per second divided by the electrical power into the device."

Also,

People have known about the U.S. Militaries use of low altitude, low speed fully electric jet engines on missiles, particularly used in conjunction with fuel based jet engines at high speed/high altitude - and used on missile guidance and targeting systems for the better part of a decade since the U.S. Military divulged this technology was a reality. And largely in user across most Missile Guidance Systems.

Electric Jet's are discussed as reality, at length all over the internet, most certainly this sample which may one day power the next Boeing

This Electric Jet Engine Could Lead to Carbon-Neutral Air Travel​

Electric Jet Engines Could Mean Carbon-Neutral Air Travel

While still a prototype, the engine could one day help alleviate climate change rates.

interestingengineering.com

And in Particular, when the U.S. Military cited it's 'Micro Jets' had become consumer viable and purchasable.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

Well good luck. I'm sure a system like that would drain even the best batteries reaaal quick

With multiple products like this on the horizon, it's only a matter of time before this morphs into "Direct over the air electricity transfer"

Eventually it will be like you're plugging in.. but without the cables. And probably powered by solar.

 

[perkelson]

shitty site looking for elon musk misquoted him.
Tesla roadster will not hover.

This was just answer to Rogan asking about flying cars as they both lived up as a kids expecting by 2000 to have flying cars. To which he said that they could make Roadster flying for a short while technically but they can't make it safe thus it won't happen in car.

On other hand they want to actually release roadster "rocket" version with gas tank that will work like a rocket for a short while exhausting those gasses when you try to accelerate which means even more acceleration.

 

[Ballthyrm]

People seem confused on how it's going to work.

Elon is talking about cold gas thrusters.

Cold gas thruster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically super compressed air that the car would store in tanks. The car would have an onboard compressor to be able to refill it.

That's why it would last about a minute, it would run out of air.

 

[lrt75914]

And for any who may be further interested - as standard. Thrusters have been known and cited as "Jet's" for ages.

Furthermore, they have been referred to as "Rockets" for ages also - any attempt to state otherwise is dubious at best.

Take this sample for Instance... where the Ion Thruster.. as far away from a traditional turbine powered actuator as I could find.. is referred to as a Jet... dismantling the previous claim that
Thrusters are not Jets.

Ion thruster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ion thruster efficiency is the kinetic energy of the exhaust jet emitted per second divided by the electrical power into the device."

Also,

People have known about the U.S. Militaries use of low altitude, low speed fully electric jet engines on missiles, particularly used in conjunction with fuel based jet engines at high speed/high altitude - and used on missile guidance and targeting systems for the better part of a decade since the U.S. Military divulged this technology was a reality. And largely in user across most Missile Guidance Systems.

Electric Jet's are discussed as reality, at length all over the internet, most certainly this sample which may one day power the next Boeing

This Electric Jet Engine Could Lead to Carbon-Neutral Air Travel​

Electric Jet Engines Could Mean Carbon-Neutral Air Travel

While still a prototype, the engine could one day help alleviate climate change rates.

interestingengineering.com

And in Particular, when the U.S. Military cited it's 'Micro Jets' had become consumer viable and purchasable.

To anyone who is interested and doesn't have the reading comprehension of a toddler. Thruster, jet, turbine, jet engine, rocket engine and actuator can't be used interchangeably.

An actuator is a component of a machine that is used for moving or controlling said maschine. Examples of actuators are thrusters, servos, valves etc.

A thruster is a propulsion device used for by space and water craft for station keeping, attitude control or long-duration, low-thrust acceleration. There are many types of thrusters that are being used and the ion thruster that Nhranaghacon cited is only one of them.

A jet is simply a stream of fluid that is beeing ejected into a surrounding medium. Many type of engines or thrusters produce a jet like the plasma jet that is being ejected by an ion thruster.

A jet engine typically refers to an airbreathing jet engine like a turbo jet, turbofan, ramjet or pulsjet. They all produce a jet of hot air but that doesn't mean that you can use jet and jet engine interchangeably.

A turbine is a mechanical device that is used to extract mechanical work from a moving fluid. Think of a gas turbine or the turbine in a jet engine that is being used to drive the compressor stage. Just because there are missiles - like the tomahawk or delilah - that use a turbo fan engine does not mean that there is such a thing as a rocket turbine engine. And the 'rocket turbine engine' that has been cited is a hybrid of a rocket and jet engine that uses its turbine to drive the compressor stage of the jet engine part.

A rocket engine uses the rocket propellant as its reaction mass, unlike the aforementioned jet engine which uses the surrounding air.

The "electric jet engine" that has been cited are, basically, plasma propulsion engines that have already been used in satellites. They are, however, not suitable for flyboards because they use are fairly inefficient and produce very little thrust.

And finally, that flyboard air that has been mentioned by Nhranaghacon does not use some military grade secret sauce. Just look up jetcat turbo fans and see if you can spot the similarities.

Its no wonder that Musk has such loyal following of fans that think that everything he does is a pure act of unbridled genius if they're all as scientifically illiterate as Nhranaghacon.

... On other hand they want to actually release roadster "rocket" version with gas tank that will work like a rocket for a short while exhausting those gasses when you try to accelerate which means even more acceleration.

Electric cars have plenty of acceleration as it is and installing a separate propellant tank and rocket engine in a car that is already pretty heavy sounds like a really dumb idea.

People seem confused on how it's going to work.

Elon is talking about cold gas thrusters.

Cold gas thruster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically super compressed air that the car would store in tanks. The car would have an onboard compressor to be able to refill it.

That's why it would last about a minute, it would run out of air.

The compressor tank that you would actually need to generate enough thrust for the Tesla roadster is too large to fit in the Tesla roadster.

 

[Sevenfold]

What a bellend.

 

[lrt75914]

What a bellend.

Me?

 

[perkelson]

Electric cars have plenty of acceleration as it is and installing a separate propellant tank and rocket engine in a car that is already pretty heavy sounds like a really dumb idea.

The 1.9 is apparently already achievable by Tesla S Plaid model by Elon interview. They claimed at start that Roadster will have 1.9 to 60. In interview Elon said it will be much faster than that. So yes. Eletrics are nuts.

The point about pressurized carbon tank is 100% true though. It is stupid. But it is not like you buy Roadster because you are smart.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I'd love to be able to jump a curb lol.

Would be incredibly practical in California's maze of "shopping centers" whose parking lots are purposefully not connected and blocked by curbs.

 

[Sevenfold]

Me?

No lol (unless you're Elon Musk in which case yes again.)

 

[lrt75914]

No lol (unless you're Elon Musk in which case yes again.)

Good god no. That asshat is currently ruining one of my hobbies and everybody is cheering him on because 'lol smort elon go brrrrr'.

 

[Mahadev]

There is a 99% possibility this will be a gimmick Elon is using to sell more cars that would make your car needlessly heavier.

 

[V4skunk]

It's hilarious how many people here are misinformed.
Tesla thrusters will use compressed air. And the hovering thing will be a party trick that lasts less than 60 seconds.
The thrusters will be used for acceleration, braking and cornering.

 

[lrt75914]

It's hilarious how many people here are misinformed.
Tesla thrusters will use compressed air. And the hovering thing will be a party trick that lasts less than 60 seconds.
The thrusters will be used for acceleration, braking and cornering.

That sounds even dumber

 

[V4skunk]

That sounds even dumber

More like people here have zero clue about technology.
Also please explain how you thought it would work? You honestly think they'd put a real jet turbine on it? And you say it sounds dumb with compressed air?

 

[lrt75914]

More like people here have zero clue about technology.
Also please explain how you thought it would work? You honestly think they'd put a real jet turbine on it? And you say it sounds dumb with compressed air?

What I meant is that it sounds even dumber than the hovering idea. I do know my way around thrusters and engines used in the aerospace industry and I was pretty sure that Tesla would not, in fact, slap a raptor engine on their car. However just because they are using compressed air does not mean that it isn't a silly idea. Honestly Elon sounds like a bit of a child.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

For anyone who isn't dubious, bent on semantics to try to disprove someone already semantically more correct than theirself - Helicopters produce a mass of molecular down thrust. Air particulate hits the area below the propellers and many scientists consider this phenomenon atypical of a Jet and hence, have called and referred to the propelled turbine of a helicopter a Jet.

Thrusters are widely referred to as Jets, anyone with a non linear legitimate grasp of reading comprehension knows this and will have no qualms admitting such.

Rockets in fact utilize turbines, some simply for heat management, many for power management, some are used to increase thrust at takeoff - they are almost always and only ever used within earths atmosphere.

Tesla is known for it's all electric vehicles, why insisting they would deviate and use a method designed to consume gas for lift - when the U.S. Military have released to the public their own all electric titled 'Micro Jets' which actuate at a far higher and superior efficiency than previous open market inferior 'independent' variants is beyond me. Zapata's toy hobbyist jet board company was purchased by the U.S. Military for a reason.

The problem with using a standard Jet engine that is not all electric, is Jet engines commonly utilize Jet Fuel... something that rails against the mantra of a company like Tesla.

To argue with anything I've said is to A. Infer plainly that Jets and Rocket's don't have turbines. They do.

To B. Essentially argue with a wall by proceeding to go around in circles, spouting fact on top of facts in some ill misgotten attempt to factually dismantle a fact

The problem with arguing with the facts, by using other facts that only reinforce the previous fact.... is... the initial and primary fact was already correct... throwing more facts at a fact
does not tend to make the previous fact any more factual. It only serves to highlight just how desperately some may rely on throwing words and facts at the air until other's enter
the conversation... that are gullible enough to buy in. To continue on this route underscores a desperate reliance or perhaps the better word would be... underestimation...
of the reading comprehension of those who may attempt to enter said conversation. Everyone can plainly see you only continue to utilize more facts, facts that in fact reinforce every word I've said.

That with the added multiple personal attacks only serves to show how strangely and oddly desperate you are here.

 

[eot]

I want that

 

[lrt75914]

For anyone who isn't dubious, bent on semantics to try to disprove someone already semantically more correct than theirself - Helicopters produce a mass of molecular down thrust. Air particulate hit's the area below the propellers and many scientist's consider this phenomenon atypical of a Jet and hence, have called and referred to the propelled turbine of a helicopter a Jet.

I have never heard anyone refer to downwash as a jet. A jet, as I already explained, is a stream of fluid that is being ejected into a surrounding medium. What you are talking about is the lift produced by an airfoil and that is typically referred to as downwash. Most helicopters use a turboshaft engine that has a turbine and ejects a jet of hot air into the surrounding medium. However that jet of hot air is neither used for lift nor thrust.

Thrusters are widely referred to as Jet's, anyone with a non linear legitimate grasp of reading comprehension knows this and will have no qualm's admitting such.

No they are not.

Tesla is known for it's all electric vehicles, why insisting they would deviate and use a method designed to consume gas for lift - when the U.S. Military have released to the public their own all electric titled 'Micro-Jet's' which actuate at a far higher and superior efficiency than previous open market inferior 'independent' variant's is beyond me. Zapata's toy hobbyist jet board company was purchased by the U.S. Military for a reason.

Could you please show me a picture of those super duper all electric tilted 'Micro-Jets'.

The problem with using a standard Jet engine that is not all electric, is Jet engines commonly utilize Jet Fuel - something that rails against the mantra of a company like Tesla.

Yeah well...that's because chemical reactions have a higher energy densities than any batteries we can produce today. Good luck trying to build an all electrical flyboard.

To argue with anything I've said is to A. Infer plainly that Jets and Rocket's don't have turbines. They do.

To B. Essentially argue with a wall by proceeding to go around in circles, spouting fact on top of facts in some ill misgotten attempt to factually dismantle a fact

The problem with arguing with the facts, by using other facts that only reinforce the previous fact.... is... the initial and primary fact was already correct... throwing more facts at a fact
does not tend to make the previous fact any more factual. It only serves to highlight just how desperately some may rely on throwing words and facts at the air until other's enter
the conversation... that are gullible enough to buy in. To continue on this route underscores a desperate reliance or perhaps the better word would be... underestimation...
of the reading comprehension of those who may attempt to enter said conversation. Everyone can plainly see you only continue to utilize more facts, facts that in fact reinforce every word I've said.

That with the added multiple personal attacks only serves to show how strangely and oddly desperate you are here.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised

 

[Nhranaghacon]

With solar scheduled to hit "Plug and Play" levels of efficiency within a decade, technologies that transmit electricity through the air, and other molecular and nanotechnologies such as the NDB on the horizon.. NDB a infinitely self charging battery that uses molecular level nuclear decay at non harmful rates to allow instantaneous recharge... and the recent levitation of a 6 Centimeter Plate using only Light that can carry up to 10 milligrams of weight ... many of these technologies are far closer to realization than most may realize, particularly those who insist other such advanced technologies do not exist.

But lets all look at the pictures and try to decipher whether U.S. Military made 'Micro Jets' that actuate at far higher and superior frequencies than hobbyist turbines exist... and ignore that the inventor is now strangely
vested in U.S. Military affairs.

Also, thrusters are widely referred to as jets, and the voyager 1 rocket... utilizes 16 thruster engines as it main's rocket component.

The thrusters on a helicopter, are called jets - but are also known as thrusters. Or 'White Tip Jets'

The only legitimate argument to be made would have been, jets don't have turbines, but they do so thats not really a legitimate argument either and is in fact the main underscoring catalyst in which said instigator had relied on.

Here are the words 'Jet Thruster' utilized in the same word. I rest my case.

NOTAR - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NOTAR (no tail rotor) is a helicopter system which avoids the use of a tail rotor. It was developed by McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems (through their acquisition of Hughes Helicopters). The system uses a fan inside the tail boom to build a high volume of low-pressure air, which exits through two slots and creates a boundary layer flow of air along the tailboom utilizing the Coandă effect. The boundary layer changes the direction of airflow around the tailboom, creating thrust opposite the motion imparted to the fuselage by the torque effect of the main rotor. Directional yaw control is gained through a vented, rotating drum at the end of the tailboom, called the direct jet thruster. Advocates of NOTAR believe the system offers quieter and safer operation over a traditional tail rotor.[1]