NULLFACTHE HOVERBOARD FEASIBILITY STUDY
A practical manual for deciding what a magnetic hoverboard would need: a compatible surface, a complete load budget, stable support and evidence that survives the first hard question.
Define the surfaceOrdinary ground and a purpose-built guideway are different projects.
Account for the systemBoard, rider, track, controls, energy and cooling belong in one study.
Advance on evidenceA load estimate is a requirement. It is never proof of safe levitation.
01 / START WITH THE SURFACE
Write down what the board is allowed to interact with before choosing magnets. The answer determines which mechanisms are worth studying.
None of the prepared-surface mechanisms compared here establishes hover over arbitrary ordinary ground. If “ride anywhere” is essential, keep the magnetic concept at the requirements gate until a supported lift mechanism is identified.
A magnetic guideway, conducting plate or controlled electromagnetic surface can form the other half of a levitation system. Each has a different force, stability, power and infrastructure burden. [1] [3] [5]
The default study is a prepared-surface concept. Rider count is configurable; every numeric example is an assumption. No magnetic component has been selected and no rideable prototype is claimed.
The first deliverable is a one-page brief: what must float, where, at what gap, for how long, and what should happen if support is lost. A video of levitation answers only one of those questions.
02 / CHOOSE A MECHANISM
Compare the complete architecture. “Magnetic levitation” is a family of mechanisms, not a specification for a universal hoverboard.
Conceptual cross-sections only. No dimensions, component selection or safe gap is implied.
| Architecture | Surface / stationary hover | What remains to prove |
|---|---|---|
| Superconductor / flux pinning | Engineered permanent-magnet track. Stationary levitation can occur within the magnetic and thermal envelope. | Gap/load maps, restoring behaviour, cooling history and duration. Lexus/IFW's historical rider demonstration used a prepared track and cryogenic cooling. [1] [2] |
| Rotary induction | Specified conducting plate/track. The board can be stationary while powered internal magnets rotate. | Lift and lateral forces, torque, power, heat and rotor containment. Patent disclosures and experimental research explain the mechanism; they are not a product rating. [3] [4] |
| Active attractive EMS | Appropriately shaped ferromagnetic guideway. Stationary support needs working power, sensing and feedback. | Upward force geometry, control response, guidance and safe rest. An attracting magnet above a steel floor pulls downward toward it. [5] |
| Moving-magnet induction | Specified conductive loops/track. Basic translational Inductrack does not levitate at rest. | Lift/drag versus travel speed and gap, low-speed support and stopping transition. Its required motion is different from an internal rotating field. [6] |
| Fixed ordinary magnets alone | Opposing magnets can exert force; that alone does not establish a freely stable static platform. | Explicit stabilizing mechanism or constraint. Earnshaw-type restrictions have assumptions; feedback, diamagnetism, superconductivity and dynamics change the problem. [7] |
| Ordinary diamagnetism | Carefully arranged fields can support suitable small objects, such as graphite. | Material and geometry-specific evidence. A small-object demonstration establishes no rider-carrying board in the cited research. [7] [8] |
Reference architecture: superconducting track. It is the clearest historical board-scale example here of stationary levitation with restoring behaviour. It still requires a complete thermal, stability, travel and stopping study. No current product availability or certified operating gap is asserted.
The 2015 project used liquid-nitrogen-cooled superconductors and an engineered magnetic track at a purpose-built hoverpark. The apparent pavement and water in the footage did not replace that track. IFW's institutional report describes the prepared guideway work. [1] [2]
A successful demonstration supports the physical mechanism under those conditions. It does not supply your board's force map, full operating envelope, cost, lifetime or rider approval.
03 / WRITE THE REQUIREMENTS
Capture the mission and the missing evidence. This browser-local worksheet is separate from the numeric calculator; keep their assumptions consistent.
Choose the exact surface and architecture at the start of the calculator below. They are included in your export.
Edits stay in this browser. Export a copy for review. No data is sent to a server.
04 / LOAD & ENERGY WORKSHEET
This calculator turns assumed mass and operating inputs into a load and energy budget. It does not calculate magnetic lift, hover height, stability, safe rider capacity or an operating envelope.
Illustrative 100 kg total load. SI units throughout. Input bounds prevent software errors; they are not safe design ranges.
m = nᵣ mᵣ + mᵦ + mₚTotal supported mass in kg: number of riders × assumed mass per rider + complete board system + additional payload.
F₀ = m g₀Static force in newtons. Standard gravity g₀ = 9.80665 m/s² is a conventional reference, not a local measurement. [10]
Fₖ = K F₀An analyst-selected scenario multiplier. It does not validate dynamic loads or supply a safety factor.
Fshare = Fₖ / nEqual division across nominal modules. This ignores off-centre loading, moments, transients, failed modules and structural flexibility.
t = Eusable / PavgHours = Wh / W, only with compatible, documented boundary and duty cycle. Unknown or zero power yields no runtime. No extra efficiency is applied; account for losses consistently in the source data.
Neither gap input participates in a force calculation. This edition has no authenticated electromagnetic maps and deliberately does not infer magnet strength, gap, lift capacity, power or stability from mass. Pressure-equivalent field arithmetic is omitted to avoid implying a universal magnetic suspension model.
Example: 75 kg rider + 20 kg board system + 5 kg payload = 100 kg → 980.665 N at rest. K = 1.5 produces 1,470.9975 N as an assumed scenario demand. Display rounding does not change the exported arithmetic.
05 / SUPPORT IS NOT CONTROL
The board must respond predictably to a moving rider, disturbances and failures. A scalar load requirement cannot answer those questions.
Identify what pushes or pulls upward, and how the opposite load reaches the foundation. Magnets attached only to the same board create internal interactions; they do not establish a ground-independent support system.
At an equilibrium candidate, vertical support balances weight. Force exceeding weight at one position does not establish a stable operating point.
Identify the intended free travel, then examine sideways motion, pitch, roll and yaw as well as vertical motion. A moving rider changes moments and module loads.
IFW characterizes lift, stiffness, damping and losses separately. Those are useful evidence categories, not quantities to infer from one force reading. [9]
No universal safe gap, field or rider mass is supplied. The study needs a configuration-specific operating envelope and competent review. A small demonstrator cannot validate a passenger platform by simple scaling.
Flux pinning can produce restoring behaviour relative to an engineered field, while the intended travelling direction remains available. Its response depends on configuration and thermal/magnetic history. Measure force and moment behaviour across the intended envelope. [9]
For active suspension, stable control must be evaluated alongside the magnetic circuit, structure, sensors, actuators and thermal limits. A coil's static pull rating does not establish the controlled platform's behaviour. [5]
06 / THE REST OF THE MACHINE
Keep the board, supporting surface and services on the same page. Moving a component off the board does not remove its cost, power or maintenance burden.
Account for deck, magnetic modules, enclosures, controls, sensors, wiring, energy storage and any cooling hardware or consumables carried. Iterate the mass ledger after every component change.
Define usable area, guideway geometry, flatness, joints, edge effects, foundation load, access and maintenance. Price installation and inspection alongside magnetic materials or conducting surfaces.
Include power delivery, heat rejection, cooling supply, instrumentation, storage, specialist review, controlled test space and recovery. Record who owns each interface.
Permanent magnets do not imply a zero-energy vehicle. Cooling, internal rotation, controls, propulsion or magnetic drag can consume energy even when wheels do not touch the track. Lack of contact does not mean lossless travel. [1] [3] [6]
Record cooling method, heat-leak assumptions, cooldown, measured hold time and loss-of-cooling response. Cold injury, oxygen displacement and pressure buildup require trained supervision and suitable vented equipment. [11]
Record average and peak input, current limits, heat rejection and shutdown consequences. Induction adds moving or time-varying fields and surface heating; rotating hardware adds containment requirements. [4]
Power (W) describes the rate of energy use. Energy (Wh) describes a quantity available over time. A battery can meet an energy target and still fail a current, temperature or discharge-rate requirement.
The electrical worksheet accepts an entered power assumption. It does not derive that power from rider load or magnetic gap. Include every relevant electrical load on the same basis; distinguish onboard power from offboard services and peak power from average power.
Cryogenic duration needs heat-leak, cooling and consumable evidence for the actual equipment. Electrical runtime is not a cryogenic hold-time estimate. Follow supplier and competent facility guidance for any cooling system.
07 / PRICE THE SYSTEM
Use dated quotes or explicitly labelled allowances. Blank categories stay unpriced; the total should never hide what has not been investigated.
| Cost allowance | Include / verify | Amount |
|---|
Blank categories remain unpriced.
No retail hoverboard price is assumed. This edition has no verified supplier package, bill of materials or rideable-system quote. A demonstration, patent or research paper does not establish an available product or a complete project budget.
Separate capital purchases from recurring expenses: electricity, cooling consumables, maintenance, inspection, space, transport and specialist time. Include labour even if unpaid. Keep the cost of one informative, supervised unoccupied experiment separate from the cost of a rider-carrying system.
Use three quote-backed scenarios when evidence permits: low, central and high. Identify exclusions and the assumption that most changes the decision. A contingency percentage cannot fix an omitted track or an unknown mechanism.
08 / ADVANCE ON EVIDENCE
At each gate, attach evidence and choose proceed to the next reviewed phase, revise, hold or stop. Evidence statuses record documentation only; they never authorize construction or riding.
Evidence: A compatible prepared surface, architecture diagram, full mass ledger, gap definitions and named reviewer.
Decision boundary: Hold if ordinary ground is being substituted for a required reaction track, or the force direction is unresolved.
Evidence: A source-backed mechanism comparison, assumptions register, budget and a qualified review of model scope. An enclosed educational demonstrator or institutional demonstration can clarify the principle.
Decision boundary: Keep observations separate from rider feasibility. Do not improvise high-speed rotors or cryogenic vessels to complete this gate.
Evidence: A suitable laboratory plan; inert loads; reviewed force/moment, temperature and energy measurements; uncertainties and abort criteria.
Decision boundary: One ideal force reading is insufficient. No person serves as a test load; unexplained drift, heat or instability stops progression.
Evidence: Qualified review of structure, guidance, stopping, safe rest and credible power/sensor/control/cooling/track-edge failures.
Decision boundary: Unoccupied platform evidence must close critical hazards before any consideration of human use. Do not derive a trial plan from this website.
Evidence: A separate multidisciplinary readiness review, applicable site and regulatory obligations, recovery arrangements and unresolved risks.
Decision boundary: This manual never authorizes riding. The outcome may be additional research, revised scope or no-go.
Make the hazards visible. Pinch/crush and attracted objects; magnetic interference with implanted devices; stored electrical and rotating energy; fire, hot conductors, falls and abrupt loss of support. Cryogenic branches add cold burns, oxygen displacement and pressure buildup. No generic distance or field threshold is a safe boundary for this prototype. [11] [12]
09 / REFERENCES & LIMITS
These sources support mechanism distinctions and the study method. They do not validate a NULLFAC board, establish supplier availability or certify a design.
Primary historical prototype account: liquid-nitrogen-cooled superconductors, rider demonstration and engineered magnetic track. No present-day product claim.
Printed page 87: institutional account of the SupraTrans II / Lexus track work. The guideway is part of the system.
Technical disclosure of rotary induction, substrate and vehicle forces. A patent is not evidence that every embodiment was built or certified.
Primary experimental/model research on electrodynamic forces and force ripple. Architecture-specific evidence, not a board rating.
Suspension systems: attractive electromagnetic suspension, guideway geometry and controlled gap. Rail principles are not a compact-board specification.
Primary laboratory explanation of moving magnetic arrays, track currents and auxiliary support below transition speed. No train gap or speed is transferred into this worksheet.
American Journal of Physics 69 (2001), 702–713. Static stability assumptions and diamagnetic exceptions.
Physical Review B 100 (2019), 045405. Primary study of material/geometry dependence; not passenger-platform validation.
Primary laboratory description of static and dynamic characterization: lift, stiffness, damping and hysteretic losses.
SP 811: standard acceleration of free fall, 9.80665 m/s². Used as a conventional reference in basic load arithmetic.
Institutional guidance on cold injury, oxygen displacement and pressure hazards. A competent facility assessment is still required.
Confirms magnetic interference risk. Consumer-device spacing advice is not a safe-distance specification for a maglev experiment.
Research notes · 14 October 2026. Magnetic levitation feasibility manual. All numeric examples are editable assumptions; no measured prototype dataset, magnetic force map, controller design, supplier quote or certified design is included. Calculator limits are software input bounds, not safe design ranges.
Study data stays in this browser and can be exported. Review estimates, requirements, source dates and unresolved actions whenever the architecture changes.