Print 63 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on May 23 at 3:38 PM

A student straps on the "Power Boots" invented by Viktor Gordeyev. The boots allow humans to run at speeds of up to 22 mph.  (Source: The New York Times)

A student runs with the "Power Boots" down a hall.  (Source: The New York Times)

Go Fast, a sports and beverage marketing company, is developing a jet pack that can last for 9 minutes, with a top speed of 85 mph.  (Source: Go Fast)

Former Swiss fighter pilot Yves rossy has invented a full jet wing, with four engines, which measures 2.5m and allows 4+ minute flights.  (Source: Daily Telegraph)

The Birdman Rocket Team, based out of Finland, has developed jet boots capable of short flights. Each boot has 16 kg of thrust.  (Source: Birdman Rocket Team)
"It's just my job five days a week, A rocket man, a rocket man"; New technology brings superstrength, can more new technology bring exoskeleton based flight to complete the "Iron Man"?

The summer's hottest blockbuster is the superhero flick "Iron Man" which stars Robert Downey Jr. as weapons designer turned superhero Tony Stark.  In part one of this two part series, we looked at the advances made in building exoskeletons, particularly Sarcos Inc.'s new Sarcos suit which can lift over 500 lbs, is maneuverable enough to handle stairs, and can run 30 minutes untethered.

Having a super-powered suit is great, but aside from his power, the comic book character "Iron Man" had two other key attributes -- speed and flight.  Without it, Iron Man would go from a superhero, to just plain super slow.

Fortunately there are some promising technologies to give the exoskeleton fighting suit of the future super speed and flight.  This article, the second part of this two part series, seeks to examine a couple of them.

First in the category of super speed comes the "rocket boots" from Russia, which after decades is nearing perfection.  Videos of the boots can be viewed here (in Russian language) [1][2][3]

The boots also go by the names "Power Boots", "Seven League Boots", "Quickwalker Boots", or commonly "Saigak Boots".  Saigak is Russian for a fast kind of elk.

The boots allow the user to run at up to 22 mph, with little fatigue, yet are delicate enough to climb stairs quickly.  They also get 70 MPG.  The boots are powered by tiny diesel/gas burning pistons.  They can carry 1/3 of a cup of fuel and propel the user 3 miles.  Using the boots, you can also jump much higher than the standard man.

Viktor Gordyev, a Russian who attended the University at Ufa in the Southern Urals, originally got the idea for the boots when sweating out laps in his college's physical education requirement in 1974.  It is unclear exactly when they were invented and perfected, except that  Gordyev's work was classified by the Soviet government.  In 1994 the project was finally declassified, and Gordyev was able to market his work.

Unfortunately, his company went under in 2006, after a lack of interest from investors. A demonstration at Disney World in 1998 went nowhere due to safety concerns.  Says a woeful Gardyev, "They don’t have characteristics that would allow an ordinary person to use them.... [using the shoes involves] taking certain risks.  They should work like a Kalashnikov.  Reliable in anybody’s hands."

Still, hopefully the U.S. military and/or investors might find some promise in the shoes.  The future remains wide open.

Next up is the rocket pack.  The rocket belt was originally invented in the 1960s by researcher William Suitor at Bell Aerosystems.  The pack had a 21 second fuel limit, as well as weight restrictions, rendering it mostly useless.  The first test flight was made by pioneer aviator Herald Graham in 1961.

After decades of little progress, a new company, Go Fast Sports and Beverage Company, is designing and marketing improved jetpacks.  Their latest model will retail at $200,000, will have a flight time of 9 minutes, a maximum speed of 85 MPH, a service ceiling of 250 ft, and a pilot weight limit of 180 lbs.  It is estimated that it will allow you to fly 11 miles on its 5-gallon tank and is powered by a T-73 turbine engine.  As pilot Troy Widgery says, who tested the pack at a recent arena show, "Not bad."

While the pack obviously would not be sufficient for flight and additional weight tolerance would be needed to handle the 100+ lbs from the exoskeleton and other apparatus (boots), it would at least get you in the air and allow you to briefly hover.

Need to really fly like a jet, like Iron Man?  That's where the third and fourth inventions this article details comes in.  French inventor Yves Rossy, a former Swiss jet fighter pilot, and current commercial pilot has invented a human-mounted mini jet, earning him the title "Fusion Man".

The jet features carbon fiber wings spanning 2.5 m, with four mini jet engines using kerosene fuel.  The engines have reached speeds of 190 MPH over the Swiss Alps, after a 8,000 ft jump out a plane. 

The wings helped him fly for over 4 minutes, landing by parachute.  Rossy describes it in French stating, roughly, "It's like there's a big handle in your back, and the good Lord takes you by it and shoves you through the air, it's fantastic!!"

At a recent demonstration flight for he elated, "It's one thing to do it on one's own, but to be able to share it live today that's extraordinary."

Rossy plans to use the wings to cross the English Channel next year.

Finnish inventors first developed the wing suit, allow men to glide along through the air.  The company that produces the suits Birdman Inc. has launched a new project, the Birdman Rocket Team.  Their lead pilot Visa Parviainen in 2005 and since has donned rocket boots for test flights.  The two jet engines attach burn a butane/propane mix, at a rate of half a liter per minute.  They provide 16kgs of thrust. 

The engines allow level flights as well as climbing.  Stalls are no problem to recover from for the skilled pilot, such as Parviainen, thanks to the agility of the human body.  Flights could last half a minute or more at high speeds.

While the Russian Rocket boots, the Go Fast Jetpack, the Jet Man wings, and the Finnish Bird suit/rocket boots represent disparate inventions that would add extra weight and complexity, if combined, together perhaps their successors could combine to provide an exoskeleton with flight capabilities, much like Iron Man in the movies.  It certainly wouldn't be cheap, and obviously the extra weight from the exoskeleton would be extremely difficult to compensate for but the rate of recent advances its look more and more doable.  Here's hoping.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Arc Reactor" technology...
By Warren21 on 5/18/2008 2:32:56 PM , Rating: 5
As stated even in the movie itself, the suit fails without a good enough power source.

I know that whole "arc reactor" thing is made up, but to be realistic with this technology we need a breakthrough like it; ridiculous amounts of power in a small package.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By KaiserCSS on 5/18/2008 3:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. As stated, until a breakthrough in either lightweight power generation or power storage is produced, a worthy powered exoskeleton will remain elusive. Perhaps a new generation Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor? It'll probably end up being powered by something we can't even conceive right now, much like how people in the 50's couldn't possibly conceive of devices like the iPod or cell phones.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By Tsuwamono on 5/18/2008 6:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
then how did gene Roddenberry come up with star trek?

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By KaiserCSS on 5/18/2008 7:22:14 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see any warp drives, phasers, teleporters, shields, or multiple humanoid alien species speaking English. And I have yet to encounter an engineering room on a starship operated by colorful knobs and light-up buttons, sans graphical displays.

I suppose I was misinterpreted. The "technology" is conceivable, but the "design and implementation" of such technology is constantly shifting due to rapid advancements in current technology that allow the production of exponentially more complex machines.

Can you conceive the implementation of a technology that hasn't even been imagined yet? Like the positronic brain of Asimov fame, there are ways to fictionally implement technological devices using what is known at the time. Who knows what sort of scientific breakthroughs will radically alter the way we imagine such devices to be implemented?

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 8:47:37 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see any warp drives

The theory is sound, if we had vast amounts of power..


Perhaps not, but we constantly have more powerful lasers, and the Enterprise under the command of Pike used lasers.


Quantum entanglement. Yeah yeah, the physics folk say you can't transfer information via such a link, but I say they're not trying hard enough. :P


True, but extremely limited 'cloaking devices' have been created and reported about here at DT, which IMHO was more impressive than 'shields' which were just convenient plot devices to keep the ship from getting the paint scratched too often.

multiple humanoid alien species speaking English

If I were an alien, I wouldn't want to talk to us either.

And I have yet to encounter an engineering room on a starship operated by colorful knobs and light-up buttons, sans graphical displays.

Guess what I saw the last time I was in the cockpit of a Cessna 172, and the last time I saw a picture of the cockpit of a space shuttle?

I saw colorful knobs, light up buttons, and many graphical displays. It looked like a cross between the technology of The Next Generation and The Original Series.

Also, I think it was gizmodo, perhaps not, but some tech blog ran a story about new medical scanners that resemble the form and function of tricorders, as used by McCoy and later series.

As for the crux of your argument, so long as we can imagine things we deem impossible I think we'll be able to imagine whats coming down the pike 30-50 years down range, despite not knowing the exact shape it'll take.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By GrandMareg on 5/18/2008 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think a small fission reactor could do it, but people are too cowardly to try it.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 5:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
They're not too cowardly, they'd just prefer to wait until someone invents Micro Fusion Cells. They can power everything from mechanized armor to plasma rifles to stylish cars and more.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By KaiserCSS on 5/18/2008 5:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Micro Fusion Cells

You refer to it as if it's an actual technology. The Union Aerospace Corporation doesn't actually exist, I'm afraid.

What about wireless energy transfer? And I'm not talking about the Tesla effect, I'm talking about evanescent wave coupling, or near field resonant induction, whichever floats your boat. It is very real and quite viable.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By Shining Arcanine on 5/18/2008 6:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
If they invented them, people would be waiting for the much safer and more environmentally friendly matter/antimatter reaction cells.

There is no point in waiting for new things when current things work.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By KaiserCSS on 5/18/2008 7:24:20 PM , Rating: 3
There is no point in waiting for new things when current things work.

For the time being. If the world worked like this, progress would be unheard of. <insert computer-related advancement anecdote here>

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By spluurfg on 5/19/2008 6:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think a small fission reactor could do it, but people are too cowardly to try it.

I have doubts about whether it's feasible to sustain a fission reaction in a device that small and whether it's really cowardice or sanity that keeps us from trying to strap such a device to a man...

At any rate, small-scale fission reactors are being explored for their use on satellites, as they offer much higher power outputs than RTG's.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By Adonlude on 5/19/2008 7:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure its feasable, but think of the implications! Everyone would have their own nuclear weapon. Didn't you see what happened when the terminators personal fission power source was ruptured? It nearly took everyone out.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By djc208 on 5/19/2008 7:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
We can't get people to recycle batteries now, what's going to happen with people throwing used fission reactors away?

Or when some guy decides to try and "fix" his, or do a Tim Taylor modification for more power?

I'm all for nuclear power, I even work in the industry, but there's a limit to how "commonplace" nuclear power should be.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 10:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Nuclear technology has no place in everyday use by the common man. It's uses belong to power generation and medical technology. Not the power source for your means of transportation.

Perhaps in a world where no one hates each other and everyone is educated. But we don't live there.

RE: "Arc Reactor" technology...
By TimberJon on 5/19/2008 11:12:41 AM , Rating: 2
A mini-Fusion-Can, could probably be scaled down, but the immense intracacy of the thing would be so costly it would not be cost-effective. Not to mention.. the waste heat.. hellooo. Even a fusion reactor the size of a can would have to have a little liquid nitro support module to keep the sucker cool. Iron man had some kind of radiator on the back of his MK1, but not on his arc reactor... But his large Arc Reactor had levels of piping and cooling support beneath the thing and within the facility. It's all props and not always thought through all the way..

But I would think that even the small Arc reactor would produce some amount of heat, especially at peak output.

Here's a nice line of thought to follow... When Stark went up to the tip of the atmosphere when Obi was following him up getting iced, the computer (forgot the name) told him that "we are now running on emergency power". THAT is more sci fi than the arc reactor! From WHAT did enough backup power -to move the suits servos, light-jets, targeting computer and AI- come from?

THATS the kind of backup-battery technology we need to run the kind of suits we currently have (which consume significantly less power than a suit with light-jets for thrust..) for probably several hours instead of one hour tops.

Cmon guys.. we need that ITER up and stable... And I'm looking at you Sandia Lab.. The Z-Machine may promise such things like the Arc Reactor, or other spinoff technologies for power amplification/retention.

By Ringold on 5/18/2008 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 3
Their latest model will retail at $200,000, will have a flight time of 9 minutes, a maximum speed of 85 MPH, a service ceiling of 250 ft, and a pilot weight limit of 180 lbs. It is estimated that it will allow you to fly 11 miles on its 5-gallon tank and is powered by a T-73 turbine engine.

Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
Cost: $110,000
Endurance: 5.8 hours maximum
Range: 470nm
Useful Load: 346lb
Cruise: 112kts
Range & Endurance @ Cruise: 390nm / 3.4hrs

Plus, of course, you're inside a protected cockpit, and a ballistic parachute should things go awry.

That $90,000 savings would pay for over a thousand hours of actually enjoying such a little plane. A 162 is almost as cool, but perhaps thats just me!

You can buy/build little pocket-rocket planes powered by used surplus military turbines, but I'd rather survive, thanks.

RE: Options
By acejj26 on 5/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Options
By hp540 on 5/18/2008 3:43:43 PM , Rating: 5
no. because he means nautical miles

RE: Options
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 6:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but you can't take off with the Cessna 162 from the sidewalk in front of your house, and you can't land it in front of your office. Assuming that the jetpack is classified as an "ultralight" deivce, it could potentially be used for such mundane tasks as the daily commute, without tethering the user to using runways the way a regular ultralight aircraft would (at least until they started catching on and everybody started using personal jetpacks, at which point the regulators would probably step in to kill everybody's fun).

To say that a regular airplane would be better ignores the things that make the jetpack solution unique. Also, I'm sure any commercialized version would include some sort of failsafe to keep the user from dying in the event of unexpected failure.

RE: Options
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/2008 6:46:36 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but you can't take off with the Cessna 162 from the sidewalk in front of your house, and you can't land it in front of your office.

And you can't do that now. Do you actually believe if this technology becomes that common, the government would allow us to take off and land anywhere we please just because it " can " ?

RE: Options
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 7:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
If it becomes common, no, the government just wouldn't stand for people having that much fun, and would step in to ruin it. However, as long as the price tag is up around $200K/unit, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that that kind of use would be permitted (or at the very least, possible to get away with).

RE: Options
By JoshuaBuss on 5/18/2008 10:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
pedal planes are allowed for things like that now, aren't they?

RE: Options
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2008 7:33:39 PM , Rating: 3
People can't even drive. You think I want to give them jetpacks? Can see the body's plastered all over the side of buildings now.

RE: Options
By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 10:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
You think I want to give them jetpacks?

No, since you clearly don't want to. I'm just glad that it's not up to you, or anyone else here, to decide.

However, I do think that people are entirely entitled to do things that may injure or kill them, if they willingly choose to do so. The people plastered across the sides of the buildings? That's just natural selection at work. If you don't have what it takes to fly safely, then you shouldn't try to fly. If you decide to try to do so anyways, then it's your own fault if you get killed. After a few generations, the problem sorts itself out. Of course, that would never work in the U.S., as there's no personal accountability for anything anymore. As soon as something goes wrong, everyone starts looking for someone to blame, and consequently, sue. And that usually ends up being the person with the deepest pockets, so no legitimate company would ever market such a product, due to fear of legal retalliation over safety issues.

RE: Options
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Options
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 10:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Thankfully you can't decide either. Because anyone who thinks people should be allowed to fly jetpacks to work or the store needs to have their head examined.

It's not a matter of personal choice. It's a matter of public safety. You slamming into a building at 150 mph can kill a lot of other people.

RE: Options
By JasonMick on 5/19/2008 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
You slamming into a building at 150 mph can kill a lot of other people.

So could you slamming into a crowd of people with your car, but cars are legal.

Its all about responsible licensed (capable adults only) use.

RE: Options
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 8:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you think office building owners across the country will smile upon jet engines landing in parking lots, I think you need to think again! AOPA operates a network of airport volunteers across the nation not to plant flowers or have BBQ's, but to defend them against constant attacks by people some times miles away complaining about the noise (among other things, but thats the popular line of attack). Turn side walks in to runways, and I think we would find these things restricted to helipads and airports. Anything that puts out enough thrust to shove someone along at 85mph will never likely be quiet.

I suppose a doctor could buzz in to work at a hospital from his home in the country, but for everyone else, these things would be toys. Their size will forever restrict range until they start to get to be the size of light aircraft anyway.

Thus, just like how the EEE PC bumps up powerfuly against the budget laptop market, this too will always have tough competition with the new category of light sport aircraft. Price competitive, better range, more comfortable, better equipped and safer.

By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/18/2008 2:37:18 PM , Rating: 1
the boots are retarded. the only thing i see making sense is the fench guys jet wing. it can be used in all type of scenarios. hes going to get rich.

RE: uh-huh
By NateMan on 5/18/2008 2:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.
The power boots are the only invention in the article that don't require an actual power source. The "wing" will only last you about 4+ minutes. And having a giant wing strapped to your back seems like a bit of a hassle if you ask me.
It would also be a serious safety hazard. People can cause enough damage with cars,; imagine if they had little jets...

RE: uh-huh
By amanojaku on 5/18/2008 3:11:21 PM , Rating: 3
Read the article again. Both pairs of boots need power.

They also get 70 MPG. The boots are powered by tiny diesel/gas burning pistons. They can carry 1/3 of a cup of fuel and propel the user 3 miles.

Their lead pilot Visa Parviainen in 2005 and since has donned rocket boots for test flights. The two jet engines attach burn a butane/propane mix, at a rate of half a liter per minute. They provide 16kgs of thrust.

RE: uh-huh
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/18/2008 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
the flying wing could be great for paratroopers and could actually serve a purpose. the boots on the other hand serve no real purpose. besides, once they run out of fuel 3 miles later, what are you going to do?

RE: uh-huh
By JustTom on 5/19/2008 10:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
Um, put more fuel in? I don't know about how much noise these things make or how easy it they are to use but they would be fantastic for light infantry and SpecOps. Carrying a small amount of fuel is no big deal and the ability to move quickly and fatigue free from an insertion point would be of great utility.

RE: uh-huh
By ninjabob333 on 5/19/2008 11:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
Um, put more fuel in?
Carrying a small amount of fuel is no big deal and the ability to move quickly and fatigue free from an insertion point would be of great utility.

Especially considering that each boot only needs 1/3 cup of fuel, one could easily carry enough extra for 2 or 3 refuelings, if not more.

RE: uh-huh
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/19/2008 4:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
you know you still have to use the walking motion to even move in those boots right? not only that but with those thing pushing against the ground wanting to go up and you having to put downward pressure against them to stay upright, think you'd get plenty tired pretty fast. thats not even including the 60+ lbs of stuff on your back without including extra fuel for the boots. theres a reason why these things didnt get any backing when he tried to promote them and im pretty sure its something along the lines of just that. the flying wing on the other hand is making media rounds left and right and can serve a pretty obvious purpose for recreation and for military

RE: uh-huh
By amanojaku on 5/18/2008 3:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
To me MySpace is retarded. It's also one of the most popular sites on the web. The pages are ugly, the features are uninspired, and the idea of meeting "virtual" people just seems wrong when you can go outside. Retarded doesn't mean unsuccessful; just ask Britney Spears and Uwe Bol.

You'd be surprised at the number of uses people can find for those boots, particularly since flying is more difficult than walking or running. Imagine hiking up a mountain trail with your elderly grandma, getting left behind as she cranks the performance up a notch!

RE: uh-huh
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 3:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Besides, fall over in the power boots, and you might bruise yourself. Screw up in the jet wing, and that thing is like a motorcycle; any high-speed incident could easily be fatal.

RE: uh-huh
By BarkHumbug on 5/19/2008 4:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
Retarded doesn't mean unsuccessful; just ask Britney Spears and Uwe Bol .

I was stuck at home with a cold this weekend and treated myself to a heroine marathon. I tried to watch Bloodrayne - The Movie (directed by Uwe Bol) but despite Kristanna Loken I had to turn it off since it made me feel more nauseous than my cold did. :)

I enjoyed Underworld 1 & 2, Aeon Flux, Elektra and Ultraviolet though. ;) Gotta love a cute girl dishing out violence...

RE: uh-huh
By BarkHumbug on 5/19/2008 4:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, should have been a reply to the post above which I quoted. Guess I'm still feeling the dizzying effects of Uwe Bol's directing... ;)

RE: uh-huh
By Schrag4 on 5/19/2008 10:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
I did a major double take when I read the first sentence of this post because I'm not really up on my spellings-of-illegal-narcotics. Once I kept reading I realized my mistake.

I'm awake now, thanks...

RE: uh-huh
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 10:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
When I first read that I thought you said heroin.

Both Underworld movies were good. The other three sucked nuts.

"Cure" for obesity?
By amanojaku on 5/18/2008 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 5
Physics nuts have known this forever, but it's been proven that vehicle emissions have increased with the increasing weight of passengers. Obviously, this is due to the increased fuel consumption needed to move the extra mass. I think Newton's second law, F=MA, applies.

Now that the world is steadily getting larger the idea that most people can use rocket boots and jet packs is laughable. Engineers are struggling to improve efficiency, but it's also helpful if people slim down. Maybe the idea that you're too fat for flight will convince people to cut out the extra side of fries in favor of flying in the atmosphere. lol

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By Screwballl on 5/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 3
Emissions equipment weighs 20 pounds at best. It does not noticeably affect mileage. Emissions equipment weighs less than it did in the 80s.

Safety equipment on the other hand weighs far more and has contributed to vehicles weighing more. All those airbags, sensors, computers, etc. all add weight. A Camaro in the 80s weighed around 3300 pounds. A 2002 Camaro weighed 3600 pounds. And thats with the newer car using less steel than the older one.

However, someone who weighs 300 lbs vs. someone who weighs 200 lbs can affect mileage too.

And higher octane does not equal lower emissions. Higher compression does (which requires higher octane). The hotter the cylinder temperature, the more complete the combustion. And the more of the bad stuff that is burned up. And yes, compression ratios have risen since the 80s as fuel injection, knock sensors, etc. have allowed higher compression engines to run lower octane gas though.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By Justin Case on 5/18/2008 6:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to the weight of the car, even an obese passenger is typically less than 10% of the total mass. Sure, every little bit helps, but it's better to be obese and drive a sane car than to be anorectic and drive a Hummer.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By amanojaku on 5/18/2008 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Four or five overweight people in a car won't change the fuel consumption much, but planes carrying 100-200 people see a noticeable increase. The CDC claims obesity cost passengers USD $275,000,000 in fuel in 2000. I'm not paying for the report to get the details, but several other studies since then claim similar results. I'm not ignoring the possibility of a BS report paid for by airlines...

Rocket boots have way less power than the engine in a car or plane. Even a few pounds can alter the flight characteristics dramatically.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 11:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more concerned with lard @$$es fat rolls coming over the arm rest than how much fuel he's using. They need to start actively making people pay for two seats if they're above a certain size. I had to sit next to lady who had to ask for a seat belt extender because the seat belt didn't fit around her fat @$$. And I was in the window seat.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 1
And in a car like a Civic, you can be sure that if 4 400lb people are in it, its going to affect mileage. The engine has to work harder to accelerate. And a base Civic doesn't have an excess of power to begin with.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 2:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yep I laughed when he said
Four or five overweight people in a car won't change the fuel consumption much

I understand he threw the word "much" in there, but that sentence still does not seem true. When you see in a car in the parking lot and all of a sudden a fat person gets in and makes half the car tilt to one better believe that car will be using more power to push that extra weight.

Now I don't think anyone less than 200lbs does much, thats about the weight of junk people have in their trunk anyways if you include the spare tire.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
The car tilts because you're affecting its equilibrium. Use harder springs and it won't tilt as much, but the weight will affect its gas consumption in pretty much the same way.

A Civic weighs about 2800 pounds. With two 160-pound people in it, it'll weight 3120 pounds. With two 260-pound people in it, it'll weigh 3320 pounds. That's a difference of 6% to the total weight the engine has to move, which will generally correspond to less than a 6% increase in fuel consumption.

By contrast, if you replace the Civic with a Hummer, your engine is having to push 6400 pounds even when there's no one in the car.

Obese people are a problem, but obese cars are a much bigger one.

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By amanojaku on 5/19/2008 3:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
You can't fit four 400lb people into a Civic! Try getting one in!

RE: "Cure" for obesity?
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 3:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea how much airline fuel costs, but a Boeing 777 (for example) weighs around 325k pounds and carries about 350 passengers. If every single passenger is overweight by 100 pounds, that means a total weight increase of 35k pounds, or approximately 10%. And that's assuming there's no luggage. If you throw in the luggage and cargo, the difference is even smaller, proportionally (probably around 5%). That's the difference in weight; the difference in fuel consumption is likely to be even lower.

Maybe it adds up to $275M, but it's a relatively small increase to their running costs.

Part III
By AmazighQ on 5/18/2008 4:12:45 PM , Rating: 4
when can i expect part III. where you explain and show how you can build a Gundum, an Evangelion, a Spidermansuit, an Autobot/Decepticon, The StarShip Enterprise E, the Battlestar Gallactica, the Cylons and the Termainator with today technoly.

RE: Part III
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/2008 6:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh Ohhh ! Can I have an Appleseed Mach V ??

RE: Part III
By nugundam93 on 5/19/2008 2:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
i want an Ex-Gear. with matching armored VF-25S please. :)

Power boots
By Runiteshark on 5/18/2008 2:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to have a pair of those power boots. They look really cool, and I would actually enjoy running around to places running errands (versus driving) if I could actually get there in a decent amount of time.

Now all it needs is a turbo, etc so we can go atleast 40mph (and smash your face in)

RE: Power boots
By KaiserCSS on 5/18/2008 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
I laughed much harder than I should have... :D

Ouch, my physics hurt!
By bldckstark on 5/19/2008 1:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody else have a problem with the fact that just since the Ironman suit is (almost) impervious to damage, so is the wearer? Imagine being strapped into a titanium suit, then getting smashed into a wall by a "bigger" suit. The guy inside would be mush. I never saw an explanation for this in any of the associated body driven robot fantasies. Many comic book heros and villains give an explanation of nearly instant healing power or whatever, but what gives Ironman, Warhammer, and other normal humans with super devices the ability to defy death in this manner?

RE: Ouch, my physics hurt!
By VashHT on 5/19/2008 3:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you mean space marines power armor from Warhammer 40k, I'll try to leverage my useless knowledge of the subject to your benefit. Basically space marines are genetic mutants, so their bodies are far more resistant to damage than normal humans. In addition they probably have some kind of force spreading cushion in their suit or something (Ironman prolly has one too), or at least that's what I'd say if I made up a super suit.

By Some1ne on 5/18/2008 4:28:01 PM , Rating: 3
The summer's hottest blockbuster is the superhero flick "Iron Man" which stars Robert Downey Jr. as weapons designer turned superhero Tony Stark.

I guess I missed the part where they moved the starting date of summer. And the ending date too it seems, as Iron Man has apparently already been declared the hottest movie of the season.

All the movie studios with releases planned for June/July are going to be pissed.

By thebrown13 on 5/18/2008 3:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Basically we need nuclear fusion to make all this stuff work. Power seems to be the only limiting factor in all of these. Let's work on that.

By SiliconAddict on 5/18/2008 8:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap. I could only imagine what would happen if someone falls going 22mph on those boots. Not pretty would be and understatement.

Keep dreamin
By Funk Phenomena on 5/19/2008 1:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
If anything, these technologies are best suited for robots. The flight applications are the most far-fetched, considering the resources expended for such minimal gain. Yet the research and paychecks keep rolling in for this human stuff, so obviously quite a few people believe otherwise, or want you the consumer to.

Big dog was impressive and scary, while the beta was quite funny.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki