The response from several members of the tech list was brutal at first, as it is with pretty much anything new introduced on that list. There was a decent amount of back and forth after those initial messages in which I think I made it clear to most of the list that Jetboots are a serious product. Some of the guys on that list really get their jollies out of vitriol, but I had private and on list conversations with a lot of them and I think I brought some around.
>In my opinion it has little practical utility and is >fraught full of potential failure points. When an >alternative is available that will outperform its intended >function and will do it in a less expensive manner it kind >of makes this item an expensive toy. So in the final cost >benefit evaluation it is a failure.
There are new failure points, but Jetboots eliminate some of the old failure points as well. For example, you can disconnect and if needed ditch the battery pack under water - you can't do this with a scooter. This means that the worst failure mode should be limited to losing Jetboots propulsion. Since you are wearing fins anyway this will only present a real problem in an overhead enviorment. In this case you should have a backup anyway.
>Just because it is a new idea or invention does not mean >that it is a viable product or even a good idea.
You are right. However, Jetboots do have some unique advantages. They are hands free. They are around 1/2 the weight of a scooter with comparable power and battery life (like the apollo av-1), and if you consider the negative bouyancy of the system they are even better in the weight department. There are others - check the FAQ section of our website.
Whoever said you ascend by swimming, you are of course correct. I meant that the person should use their BC to maintain neutral bouyancy and shouldn't use the thrust of Jetboots to overcome their negative bouyancy.
Ben Mazin
President, MST
http://www.jetboots.com/
eace:
