The Guardian: "You won't have a jet pack, live with it"
There are also “opponents” of jetpacks, such as the journalist Dean Burnett from The Guardian, we will know them by sight.
Dude, there will be a jetpack for you.
3r33170. Article dated September 2? 201? 3-33-317.
Typical complaints about science are connected with jetpacks - you see, we still don’t have them, but “promised.” However, their absence is not connected with the failure of scientists, but with physical and anatomical limitations, not to mention the fact that the creation of a jet pack is a terrible undertaking.
3r33170. “Where is my jetpack?” 3r3171.
You have probably heard this question more than once. And with a 99% probability this was said as a rebuke to scientists. Because if scientists did their job well, we would already have jet packs, right?
Today it is increasingly possible to see how people on the Internet — a place where everyone can express their complaints, demonstrate their ego — appear with online requests like “where is my jetpack?” So, we have people who have frighteningly powerful pocket computers who can access all the information bases of the world, one has only to press the (virtual) button through invisible rays moving at the speed of light, and they use them to write complaints that they do not have “futuristic” technologies. But who needs introspection if you have a brilliant phone, right?
built a device with a pedal drive 3r3220. which allowed a person to be in the air for more than 60 seconds. For this, they were awarded a sum of $ 25?000.
3r3398. 3r399. 3r3-300.
Compare this to the Tour de France, where hundreds of people using pedal-driven vehicles were able to cross the whole country. Now you see that it is much easier to move on the ground than through the air.
This is all according to Newton and the laws of mechanics formulated by him. With vertical movement, you need so much power to “turn off” gravity before you can move anywhere. Keep in mind that you will have to deal with the total mass of the planet Earth, which is, as it are scientifically to say, "hefty."
Of course, you can overcome gravity, there are flights and trips to space, but for this you need a lot of energy. At the moment, the most practical fuel that we have is chemical. Jet fuel and rocket fuel are produced using highly reactive chemicals that have a high physical mass, which also needs to be considered. The more energy you need, the more fuel you need for your aircraft. The more fuel, the more your aircraft will weigh. The more he weighs, the more energy you need in order for it to move from its place - this is how a vicious circle is formed (a term also very suitable for pedal-driven flight).
To achieve sustainable flight of aircraft, the principles of aerodynamics are taken into account, and manned rockets are very large. The Apollo programs used large Saturn-5 rockets, most of which, first of all, needed fuel to get into space. A huge amount of fuel was required to send an object the size of a minibus into space.
I hope that, with this in mind, it will be easier for you to understand why jet packs are impractical. In the case of a jetpack, the person attached to it is a useless mass, which must also be taken into account. In fact, there are already such jetpacks that allow their owner to make significant jumps until the fuel runs out, but apart from doing impressive tricks at the opening of the Olympics, how else can this be used?
Until we find an affordable and at the same time very powerful source of fuel that can provide energy that is enough for a long-distance flight in something like a backpack, the jet packs are unreal. We may be able to miniaturize nuclear reactors, but since people are already panicking about the fact that they live 15 km from a nuclear station, they will not be able to carry such bags.
Even if energy problems are solvable, there are other issues, such as how to manage them. And even if this and all other problems are solved and the jet packs become a mass product, is this reasonable? Machines today are common, but they were not introduced to the general use without problems, on the contrary - there were a lot of "trial and error" - to put it mildly. The transport system is well regulated and carefully controlled (speed limits, designated roads and lanes, numerous laws, and so on). Many do not understand this, but the meaning of these rules is to save people from death!
That, in general, poses a new question regarding jetpacks - security. If your bike or your car breaks down suddenly, you will be angry, but you will not die from a fatal fall from a height. People make mistakes for various reasons (if you have ever come across rudeness on the roads, you can clearly imagine the reasons). Now imagine that instead of creating a dangerous situation or blocking the road, the incompetence or inattention of the owner of the vehicle led to his uncontrolled fall on the town with explosives on its back. A flat tire will never lead to problems of this kind.
In addition, it will not be easy to use jetpacks. Pilots train for years before they are entrusted with the control of the flying machine, it cannot be said that it will be different with jet packs. And if suddenly all this can be somehow effectively settled, what is the result? As a result, we get a large part of the population - flying with jetpacks and throwing out waste caused by high-energy fuel reactions. The impact of these emissions on the environment and climate can be devastating.
Thus, although the idea of a “jet pack” seems to be cool, the difficulties and dangers inherent in its embodiment can definitely have such an effect that the average statistical “demand” of the pack does not even suspect. And he needs to think, because this effect can be irreparable. In general, it would be much safer, and simply cooler, if everyone had hoverboards like in the movie “Back to the Future-2”. And by the way, where are they? Hey, scientists, get to work!
3r33170. “A new star is burning in the sky. It was lit, of course, by hooligans. ”(Valentin Gaft) [/i]
You can follow how we are doing the first Russian turbojet of a vertical take-off here: 3r-3216.
- 3r3186. the blog on Habré
- 3r3190. channel in Telegram
- 3r3194. VK group
- 3r3198. my profile is in Fb
- write letters here [email protected]
By the way, the company RUVDS became interested in jetpack and helps storm the clouds.
Bonus blog readers:
It may be interesting