The Practicality of Hovering Vehicles

[NFUN]

I don't understand why you guys seem annoyed and dismal about the things I post about technology and the like. You guys have to admit that this is far more feasible than cold fusion, which I was obsessing over (I haven't given up on it yet).

Because you have listed advantages of technology without addressing issues realized years ago. You claim enlightenment, yet give no indication that this is so, you only state 'trust me, my idea works'. You start the thread with no premise but that you have an idea, and you expect us to reply with anything other than debate about the flaws in the feasible tech? There isn't really anything else to talk about, it is unlikely that you would confirm any speculation on what exactly you have planned.

This is a more feasible field than cold fusion, but with no advanced education, experience or even reasons for us to believe you when you say you have figured this out, we can't help but be dismal about the current, understood flaws.

This isn't meant to be rude, I am just confused what you expected this thread to be like. Anyways, it will be years before you are ready to patent whatever technology you have in mind (1-4 years of high school, at least 4 years of college, almost certainly more). If you could figure out a practical solution, other, more professional bodies will likely as well in the time frame. You would be better off submitting your idea to a professor in a college you want to go to, or a scientist/engineer in this field, and hope they compensate you, put in a good word for you, or credit you.

[Tommygun]

NFUN, pretty well summed up the problem.

It's hard to know what to say with little to no information, so we have to look at what technology exist now or is near future(not counting on EM Drives yet).

I wish you luck, but I hope you understand the skepticism, just don't take it personally.

[magnemoe]

Related:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/company-creates-real-back-to-the-future-hoverboard-and-1648887686

Apparently it works, downside is that it require an metal surface who can not be magnetized like aluminum or copper, it also eats a lot of power.

Stupid that you can not use it on iron surfaces as they are more common.

[Albert VDS]

Sorry I couldn't resist:

[Red Iron Crown]

HOVER CARS

Considering the fuel consumption of regular cars and the energy consumption of this hover tech, they would basically break even.

How? The hover mechanism must, by necessity, exert enough energy to offset gravity. Even if the propulsive technologies are equally efficient (a very tall order), the hover car would have to spend more energy.

[Kryten]

You don't necessarily need to exert energy to hover at a fixed distance, any more than a magnet needs to exert energy to stay attached to a fridge. Hovercraft can approach the efficiency of wheeled vehicles, but only on extremely flat surface where they can avoid loss of pressurised air.

[cantab]

How? The hover mechanism must, by necessity, exert enough energy to offset gravity.

Which with a constant hover height on a level surface is zero. A force that produces no motion does no work and thus need not require energy.

In practice it probably will, and it will need an energy input to start hovering and to go up slopes, but in a level hover there's no general (ie independent of the specific technology) reason the power requirement will have any minimum value.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well yes, but energy must be exerted to create that force. I know of no way of creating a force large enough to offset gravity that consumes no energy.

[Kryten]

So you don't know about helium balloons or fridge magnets?

[Red Iron Crown]

Heh, clearly I'm struggling this morning.

Somehow I don't think either of those are the OP's mystery technology, though.

[Technical Ben]

You don't necessarily need to exert energy to hover at a fixed distance, any more than a magnet needs to exert energy to stay attached to a fridge. Hovercraft can approach the efficiency of wheeled vehicles, but only on extremely flat surface where they can avoid loss of pressurised air.

Entropy always wins. It's just if you can slow it down enough. Technically, we are all hovering right now, microns above our chairs. As no 2 things physically touch, and as you say, magnetic forces repel. But even a massive supermagnet would eventually loose it's magnetism unless maintained some how (cooled or powered).

[Mazon Del]

Right now I am assuming that JMBuilder's idea is to utilize 2nd gen Q-Thruster/Cannae/EMDrive tech coupled with some relatively decent power supply (either a high output combustion source, nuclear micro-pile, or maybe Lockheed's truck mounted fusion reactor).

If this is so, than honestly what is far more useful than a hover tank, is a flying battlecarrier (battleship crossed with a carrier). Given the supposedly theorized capabilities of a 2nd gen Cannae drive you could easily do this.

If this is in fact the tech you've thought of JMBuilder, sorry to say but loads of people have already thought of it. If it is what you came up with, then it might help to admit it so the conversation can carry on constructively.

As an aside for you. As an inventor myself I have to admit the tone of the more difficult aspects of it is when you are attempting to constructively converse on it and you get the sort of reactions you have been getting. There are ways to try and mitigate this. Primarily when creating a topic as yours has been, provide suppositions "Here is definitely what the item can do. Here is what it cannot. Here are pros, here are cons.". Now honestly you will likely run into several situations where giving all the info gives it away, so then drop in an extra thing a small red herring of sorts, or pull something back. Either way, don't give up hope on inventing.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Mazon Del

[KerikBalm]

utilize 2nd gen Q-Thruster/Cannae/EMDrive tech

So... they will make a 2nd generation of something that most likely doesn't work and has no good evidence to suggest it might work?

[Kryten]

Need something to get the investors excited, hovercars work better than satellite propulsion.

[Holo]

far more feasible than cold fusion

Zero times a million is still zero.

[Mazon Del]

So... they will make a 2nd generation of something that most likely doesn't work and has no good evidence to suggest it might work?

Now now KerikBalm. I know your stance on the system, this thread isn't about that. Utilizing the drive in a hover-vehicle IS a patentable idea. If it turns out the drive doesn't work, well then the patent is useless but still existent. And yes, you can get patents on things that don't work out or are declared infeasible. Mostly because the patent office does not have the budget to have people on staff that can definitively declare things one way or another.

[JMBuilder]

Okay, screw it. Here's the idea.

Electrodes ionize the air around them, and electromagnets contain and repel off of the plasma. The vehicle wouldn't fly because it needs a surface to help contain the "plasma wheels." It would merely hover a few feet off of the ground or water. As for propulsion, the "plasma wheel" devices would merely tilt in different directions, similar to a rocket's gimbal.

[DaveofDefeat]

Maybe he wants to use earths natural magnetic field to levitate his hover craft. Won't work but I thought it would be fun to guess what his idea is.

He ninjad me!

Still seems incredibly energy intensive.

Edited October 27, 2014 by DaveofDefeat

[JMBuilder]

Still seems incredibly energy intensive.

That's my problem. Doesn't ionization take several thousand volts?

[EdFred]

Plus you gotta power the electromagnets. It's a good idea, but the energy needed is well up there. Also, there might be an issue with arcing to anything within 100m or so.

[Karriz]

Okay, screw it. Here's the idea.

Electrodes ionize the air around them, and electromagnets contain and repel off of the plasma. The vehicle wouldn't fly because it needs a surface to help contain the "plasma wheels." It would merely hover a few feet off of the ground or water. As for propulsion, the "plasma wheel" devices would merely tilt in different directions, similar to a rocket's gimbal.

How much energy would this use? I haven't done any calculations, but it sounds like a lot.

After all, it needs constant 1G acceleration upwards in order to hover, and that energy has to come from the vehicle itself.

[Tommygun]

Have there been any solid studies on the health issues of breathing ionized air?

I know doctors seem to be unsure about it.

[DerpenWolf]

So from what I'm getting from this it sounds like you want to ionize the air around the system and use electromagnets to move the air for propulsion, That correct? If so then why wouldn't you just use a propeller or something? It would be far less energy intensive then an atmospheric ion engine.

[JMBuilder]

It isn't an ion engine. It contains a bubble of plasma and repels off of it. It doesn't constantly expel plasma.

[Frozen_Heart]

The ideas is known but so far not practical. As I said before at some point in the future with better energy storage / generation and room temperature superconductors then it may become a possibility. Energy storage is an area of research to get into right now as so many technologies are just waiting on that. Whoever makes the breakthrough will do well for themselves...

So... they will make a 2nd generation of something that most likely doesn't work and has no good evidence to suggest it might work?

They don't know if something works so they refine it and test again to give clearer results... You know that's how to science?