Core77

This "Floating" Backpack Stays Level While You Run, Conserving Energy

The Hoverglide Floating Backpack lets you carry more weight with less effort

By Rain Noe - August 21, 2018

in Bags

Here's what I don't miss about the city: Running to catch the subway or beat the light while wearing a backpack full of stuff, the contents crashing up and down with each step. Heavy loads jostling around on your back is unpleasant and makes running awkward.

A company called Lightning Bags has designed this fascinating HoverGlide Floating Backpack, which uses a frame and bungee cords to keep itself in place even as the wearer is bouncing up and down:

Enter a caption (optional)

The pack "eliminates the accelerative forces that cause injuries and reduce mobility," the company writes. "Using a patented pulley system, the pack reduces the metabolic energy requirement by 40-80 watts, allowing a wearer to carry 8-12 extra pounds 'for free.'"

The company has been working on this technology for over a decade, and has recently announced plans to launch models for sale on Kickstarter. We'll keep you posted.

o

Favorite This
Q
13

Comment

Comments

Rob Harris

a year ago

Z

Z

Reply

Problem is, unless it's extremely reliable - all those bells and whistles don't matter: straps are attached directly to mechanism that hold the bag itself. If something happens and it breaks mid-travel you pretty much have no means to reattach it. As concept it is pretty great if it works as being told. In reality, design would need some extra work in case of emergency since it looks much more like a demo of mechanism rather than actual working model. Hopefully it's going to get more development in future(after all look how much stuff like running shoes went forward over the years, people used to run on foam soles vs current extremely advanced gel soles, there are also special "jumping" insoles now that allow you to jump higher. Maybe in a decade those backpacks going to be in every <a href="https://rununited.com/
">running store</a> out there :D )

!Report as spam
Edward Howard

6 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

There has been a lot of technical talk about this backpack . Watts, energy. power and so forth. It is much simpler than that...tell me, if it is on a suspension mechanism, doesn't the pack remain almost stationary when one is running other than the forward movement of course. Isn't the energy to jerk the pack up and down to the frequency of the wearers running, more than to just simply hold it. And isn't eliminating shock fatigue really the purpose of this contraption. Why do they make running shoes? Its like anytime you accelerate a mass, it requires more energy than if you dont. You dont get enough rest on the down stoke of the backpack to compensate for the upward acceleration or push.

!Report as spam
Giorgio Santero

6 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

How does it behave with a light or a very heavy load? Is the spring adjustable?
Do I have to spend a lot of time testing the load adjustments until the right balance is found? Many questions....

!Report as spam
John Doe

6 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Pretty sure the first law of thermodynamics is being violated if this backpack is somehow able to remove “40-80 Watts” from the act of carrying a backpack.

!Report as spam
- amunta nul
  
  John Doe
  
  6 years ago
  
  Z
  
  Z
  
  Reply
  
  The static load would increase with the added weight of the mechanism, but the dynamic load would decrease. That being said it is overly complicated for the small "problem" that it's solving, and it is WAY more likely to break compared to a regular backpack especially in an outdoors enviornment
  
  Videographers have had something similar for years, though, reduces strain on the cameraman and allows smoother shots.
  
  !Report as spam
  - Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    amunta nul
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    Amunta — agreed. complex solution to something many don't see as a problem.
    
    John — You keep talking about energy as if it were power to continue arguing your point.
    https://gph.is/2uFe0Wu
    
    !Report as spam
  - John Doe
    
    amunta nul
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    The total dynamic load remains the same. The impact load is just being converted from a instantaneous shock to tensioning of a spring over a time interval. The total energy requirements for hauling this backpack, even if we assume that the mechanism has zero weight, are identical.
    
    !Report as spam
- Dave Eyvazzadeh
  
  John Doe
  
  6 years ago
  
  Z
  
  Z
  
  Reply
  
  It wouldn't violate the first law of thermodynamics the same way that you can't score a touchdown in baseball.
  You are confusing power associated with kinetic energy with heat energy.
  Power = work/time. Work = Force/Distance.
  The suspension albeit does not change the load, but changes the distance over which "work" is done when taking a step. And that work is performed over a longer period of time due to the suspension. Thus, limiting the power calculation as well.
  So yes, it makes sense, that it requires less human power output and thus "metabolic energy" to carry a pack with this suspension. The real questions are...
  1) How heavy is the mechanism?
  2) Is it annoying?
  3) Will it be relegated to use by google glasses wearers?
  
  !Report as spam
  - Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    John Doe,
    1) I do not have a "misunderstanding of physics."
    2) You are correct. I misstated your confusion over the first law of thermo. Last I checked, it regards the conservation of ENERGY — NOT POWER.
    
    Now... If a mass moves over a distance, it does the same amount of work regardless of time. If it is done over a longer period of time, by definition requires less power.
    If you are running forward at the same pace with or without a suspension pack, yes — your power in a forward motion remains unchanged regardless of the backpack.
    What changes however is the vertical vector which you see as impact. Impact is just power exerted over a very short distance. Instead of having an additional 20kg of backpack contributing to impact over lets say 2mm of deflection of your shoes, that impact is translated to lets say 5cm of travel; a longer distance, and CERTAINLY a longer period of time.
    Thus, based on power being work/time (making a conservative assumption that the time of travel of the pack is directly related to the distance) — that would result in approx. 50x less power associated with the pack.
    
    Is it 40-80 watts? Not a clue. I'm sure they have their own data and assumptions they have based that estimate on. But it certainly requires less power.
    
    !Report as spam
  - Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    I misstated the difference in power. It would be 25x.
    Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the maths too. All the maths.
    
    !Report as spam
  - John Doe
    
    Dave Eyvazzadeh
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    The first law of thermodynamics applies to all forms of energy, not just heat. This mechanism actually incurs a net loss over a conventional pack due to losses in tensioning the bungee cords. If we use your definition of work, a force exerted over a short distance requires less work than the same force exerted over a longer distance.
    Ignoring your misunderstanding of physics, you’re on the right track with the idea that the suspension system increases the time over which the force must be exerted, however, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion as the net “metabolic energy” expenditure will be identical or greater. The manufacturer’s claims of saved watts are bullshit.
    
    !Report as spam
- amunta nul
  
  John Doe
  
  6 years ago
  
  Z
  
  Z
  
  Reply
  
  Can't reply in line to your latest comment (why core77, why?)
  
  Think about standing in place and jumping up and down in rhythm. With a normal backpack it's directly attached to you, you're using more energy (compared to wearing nothing) to jump up, AND when you land, absorbing the deceleration. This backpack will keep the relative position of the backpack the (relative) same; less distance = less work so in theory you will be expending less energy compared to a normal backpack. However if you're walking smoothly, or running/climbing out of rhythm this is going to do more harm than good.
  
  !Report as spam
  - John Doe
    
    amunta nul
    
    6 years ago
    
    Z
    
    Z
    
    I understand your logic, less acceleration on the backpack= less energy exerted fighting gravity since it remains at a static height. The problem is that in order to maintain the static height, the suspension mechanism must disperse the energy that would otherwise be spent creating a shock impulse in the shoulders of the wearer. That shock impulse does not go away, it just slows down and is distributed through the bungees in the suspension system over a longer timeframe. Think of lifting an apple tied to an elastic band vs lifting an apple tied to a string- do you expend less energy moving your hand vertically in the air because the elastic band is between your hand and the load? Now think about moving your hand up and down at the natural frequency of the sprung mass system, such that the apple does not move. Does your hand require any less energy to move?
    
    !Report as spam