Radial engines have much more in common with typical overhead valve engines, except that instead of the cylinder layout in an inline or V configuration, they are placed at a radius from the centerline of the crank.
Opposed pistons share common cylinder walls and spark plugs, but due to clearances, valving is difficult. Each piston becomes the other's combustion chamber. What ends up happening is that you need two crankshafts, and then gearing of some sort to link them together. The big benefit is that it can be a pancake motor - very low profile, similar to other flat fours/sixes/eights, but turned inside out.
Opposed piston motors have been around since the 40s in terms of innovative designs. As far as unique engine variants go, early imagination was not quashed. Books older than you have been written about the pros and cons of I-head, F-head, T-head... 2-cycle diesels, 4-cycle diesels, etc. Check out the Knight sliding sleeve engine. It's all been thought of and conceived, but whether it be incredibly high manufacturing costs or less-than-reliable operation, some force has prevented their use from becoming mainstream.
History repeats itself. What's old is new again.
And why are we beating the dead horse that is ICE engines when we could be advancing other technologies? I wrote in a previous comment how it's very similar to new titanium horseshoes... great, but why?
That proves his point even more. If that information was factual, it paints a more accurate picture of the entire situation.
Had the fact come to light that he was doing it on a city sidewalk at noon, that paints even more of the picture. Throwing in a fallacy that it was in front of a preschool distorts the picture.
It's why when you go before the court, the common perjury statement requested is, "Do you swear to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
You are the very first commenter I've seen that actually brought this to light. Many others are comparing CO2 emissions of gas ICE vs. diesel, or miles per gallon... but it's all a moot point.
We might as well talk about the new titanium horseshoes in production.
I think you greatly underestimate the maintenance costs on that particular 22 year old car, assuming you can find one that doesn't have a blown motor.
Let's compare a few of the maintenance items on ICE vehicles vs. pure electric, shall we? Note that the Volt is not a pure electric, but the Nissan Leaf is.
ICE vehicles:
5 quarts of motor oil
Oil Filter
Air Filter
Fuel Filter
Spark Plugs
Serpentine Belt
Timing Belt
Windshield Wipers
Alternator
Starter
O2 sensors
Coolant/Antifreeze
Transmission flush
Battery
Tires
Brake Pads
Rotors
Pure Electrics:
Tires
Brake Pads (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Rotors (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Windshield Wipers
Battery
I realize that several of these are not directly comparable - obviously the battery prices will be different between the two, although the time required between replacement will be similar. Some parts are replaced more often than others, and this list does not include large part failures such as transmissions, differentials, or engines (none of which pure electrics have, but different ICE car manufacturers have different luck with).
YMMV. 80 is really fast for an old Ford Fiesta, but barely cruising for an Audi R8. It's also really fast if you're 85 years old, not nearly as fast if you're 25.
I'm guessing the Volt will do just fine at 80 MPH, along with most modern cars. It just won't be as efficient compared to a slower speed.
Many biped mammals living in the North American continent cannot correctly follow a simple pre-determined decision tree based on sensory input. Does this mean that the car is smarter than those biped mammals?
Thank you for explaining that to the rest of the country. I have a lot of friends who live elsewhere that ask me about her on occasion, and this pretty much sums up how I explain it to them.
Many PLCs don't run.nix, they run their own proprietary version of ladder logic. PLCs aren't playing MP3s, don't need any drivers for printers, and run under 500 MHz. Many use proprietary networking protocols, or some version of CANbus or TCP/IP to communicate with other PLCs in the network, and they use RS-232 or RS-485 to communicate with a host computer for program uploads. In fact, the vast majority of PLCs out there don't even have a display device.
Now, having said that, Siemens and other industrial controls builders use Windows (I presume Windows CE) because HMI devices (which are sometimes also PLCs) are becoming highly graphical in nature, and it becomes easier to develop system screens with "drag and drop" technology than it is to try and code those screens in hex. If the user wants a screen changed or added, it's a 30 second affair instead of an 8 hour task.
The article does not say that this worm had anything to do with Windows, only that the Siemens HMI device was running Windows. It did say that someone had to duplicate a Siemens industrial network to research the worm. What this means to me is that the worm was developed to spread over one of the proprietary industrial networking protocols, probably by someone with some decent Siemens experience.
There are lots of individuals out there with lots of poorly researched conspiracy theories. (The earth is flat, faked moon landings, etc.) They tell their audiences what they really believe, regardless of trying to please as many people as possible. Some even offer "proof" and "independent research." Is that still a good thing? Sure, it's freedom of speech; and sure, people have the right to buy into it if they choose. Some do, because it's easier to just accept it and follow the rest of the sheep than it is to do the research for yourself. If more and more Americans bought into a flat-earth theory because it was explained in a way that made sense to them using a white board and lots of gesticulating, do I still get to weep for my countrymen? I should hope so.
I choose to get the occasional political commentary from Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart, the twice a month I care to look for it.
By the way, I should be thanking you for posting so late in the game; because of your comment I happened to see my "-1 troll" mod, the first time I think I've ever received that distinguished honor.
I had to re-read your last sentence to make sure you weren't saying that Glenn Beck is embraced by the mainstream. Because if you were (and if, somehow, that were true) I would weep for my countrymen.
IMHO, this is the kind of inventive tinkering that should be pushed forward in today's schools. It takes a lot of different skills from across several disciplines to be able to crank something like this out, but once you see it, you realize how simple it really is. It takes imagination and perseverance as well, and that's hard to teach.
I don't mean to start a "Public schools are apathizing our youth!" thread, but I wonder how many kids would really enjoy classes geared towards making useful projects out of surplus crap - a combining of wood shop, metal shop, and electronics classes.
1) Because no one in charge really gives a crap about a station that barely appears on a country's military budget
2) Because the aforementioned station is just a repeater
3) Security thru obscurity = not having to pay guards with guns
Just some thoughts. There is an unmanned 100kw FM transmitter and 305m tower not far from where I grew up in the farm fields of central MN. Huge Pirate Radio can be yours by picking a 7-pin lock.
You're totally trolling and I should be using my points to mod you down, but instead I'll provide a different outlook for your consideration.
Many people in this country still access the internet using a dial-up 56K modem - many of _them_ are achieving only half that speed, due to physical distances and line quality. They cannot access many of the web's features in any kind of timely manner. However, I don't see a requirement in the bill for broadband access to be made available in gratis to all people regardless of creed, color, marital status or disability. In fact, providing any form of internet or multimedia access is not a requirement laid out anywhere in our laws. People of all disabilities still have to pay for their computers, pay for their internet access, and pay for everyday items to maintain their quality of life. So yes, money is a very important factor.
Innovations in multimedia have been made by consumers spending money in that segment (aka Capitalism), not by the government requiring technology companies to make devices to service a minority. If there is a gaping hole in the way information and multimedia is distributed, you would think there would be companies trying to capitalize on providing services to that minority. Because that'sthe wayit has worked in the past. The future is going that way too, on it's own. It does not need help from soon-to-be-outdated government bills.
It's hard. It's expensive. It won't please everyone. But it is totally worth it for future generations. It takes vision, vision beyond the end of our noses, to realize that.
I was unconsciously filling my diapers half a planet away when Margaret Thatcher was in office; please enlighten me with the specifics and the correlations and I will happily entertain and debate them.
Because from what Wikipedia tells me about the mass privatization that occurred in the UK under Thatcher version 2.0, it doesn't directly compare whatsoever. The Chinese are basically telling 2000 factories that they're outdated inefficient dinosaurs and that they no longer deserve to consume energy, whether they can afford it or not. In effect, industrial eugenics. Thatcher turned a bunch of state-owned utilities and industries over to private companies and let them compete, to whatever end they would. In effect, industrial Darwinism.
These are different concepts with different end results.
From a different perspective, China is only able to get this done because they aren't a democracy. If they had to put it up for discussion and a vote, it would be years of delay, but meanwhile an insane amount of energy would be lost during that delay. In this case their government is swift and able to make decisions promptly "for the greater good."
Slashdot Mirror
Indianapolis.
Here is a good picture. Notice the spur gearing that links the two crankshafts on the left side of the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jumo205_cutview_02.jpg
That's not an opposed piston configuration.
Radial engines have much more in common with typical overhead valve engines, except that instead of the cylinder layout in an inline or V configuration, they are placed at a radius from the centerline of the crank.
Opposed pistons share common cylinder walls and spark plugs, but due to clearances, valving is difficult. Each piston becomes the other's combustion chamber. What ends up happening is that you need two crankshafts, and then gearing of some sort to link them together. The big benefit is that it can be a pancake motor - very low profile, similar to other flat fours/sixes/eights, but turned inside out.
Opposed piston motors have been around since the 40s in terms of innovative designs. As far as unique engine variants go, early imagination was not quashed. Books older than you have been written about the pros and cons of I-head, F-head, T-head... 2-cycle diesels, 4-cycle diesels, etc. Check out the Knight sliding sleeve engine. It's all been thought of and conceived, but whether it be incredibly high manufacturing costs or less-than-reliable operation, some force has prevented their use from becoming mainstream.
History repeats itself. What's old is new again.
And why are we beating the dead horse that is ICE engines when we could be advancing other technologies? I wrote in a previous comment how it's very similar to new titanium horseshoes... great, but why?
That proves his point even more. If that information was factual, it paints a more accurate picture of the entire situation.
Had the fact come to light that he was doing it on a city sidewalk at noon, that paints even more of the picture. Throwing in a fallacy that it was in front of a preschool distorts the picture.
It's why when you go before the court, the common perjury statement requested is, "Do you swear to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
You are the very first commenter I've seen that actually brought this to light. Many others are comparing CO2 emissions of gas ICE vs. diesel, or miles per gallon... but it's all a moot point.
We might as well talk about the new titanium horseshoes in production.
I think you greatly underestimate the maintenance costs on that particular 22 year old car, assuming you can find one that doesn't have a blown motor.
Let's compare a few of the maintenance items on ICE vehicles vs. pure electric, shall we? Note that the Volt is not a pure electric, but the Nissan Leaf is.
ICE vehicles:
5 quarts of motor oil
Oil Filter
Air Filter
Fuel Filter
Spark Plugs
Serpentine Belt
Timing Belt
Windshield Wipers
Alternator
Starter
O2 sensors
Coolant/Antifreeze
Transmission flush
Battery
Tires
Brake Pads
Rotors
Pure Electrics:
Tires
Brake Pads (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Rotors (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Windshield Wipers
Battery
I realize that several of these are not directly comparable - obviously the battery prices will be different between the two, although the time required between replacement will be similar. Some parts are replaced more often than others, and this list does not include large part failures such as transmissions, differentials, or engines (none of which pure electrics have, but different ICE car manufacturers have different luck with).
YMMV. 80 is really fast for an old Ford Fiesta, but barely cruising for an Audi R8. It's also really fast if you're 85 years old, not nearly as fast if you're 25.
I'm guessing the Volt will do just fine at 80 MPH, along with most modern cars. It just won't be as efficient compared to a slower speed.
From an engineering standpoint, has anyone ever determined how much I/O that would take?
Many biped mammals living in the North American continent cannot correctly follow a simple pre-determined decision tree based on sensory input. Does this mean that the car is smarter than those biped mammals?
This.
Thank you for explaining that to the rest of the country. I have a lot of friends who live elsewhere that ask me about her on occasion, and this pretty much sums up how I explain it to them.
Many PLCs don't run .nix, they run their own proprietary version of ladder logic. PLCs aren't playing MP3s, don't need any drivers for printers, and run under 500 MHz. Many use proprietary networking protocols, or some version of CANbus or TCP/IP to communicate with other PLCs in the network, and they use RS-232 or RS-485 to communicate with a host computer for program uploads. In fact, the vast majority of PLCs out there don't even have a display device.
Now, having said that, Siemens and other industrial controls builders use Windows (I presume Windows CE) because HMI devices (which are sometimes also PLCs) are becoming highly graphical in nature, and it becomes easier to develop system screens with "drag and drop" technology than it is to try and code those screens in hex. If the user wants a screen changed or added, it's a 30 second affair instead of an 8 hour task.
The article does not say that this worm had anything to do with Windows, only that the Siemens HMI device was running Windows. It did say that someone had to duplicate a Siemens industrial network to research the worm. What this means to me is that the worm was developed to spread over one of the proprietary industrial networking protocols, probably by someone with some decent Siemens experience.
Does not follow.
There are lots of individuals out there with lots of poorly researched conspiracy theories. (The earth is flat, faked moon landings, etc.) They tell their audiences what they really believe, regardless of trying to please as many people as possible. Some even offer "proof" and "independent research." Is that still a good thing? Sure, it's freedom of speech; and sure, people have the right to buy into it if they choose. Some do, because it's easier to just accept it and follow the rest of the sheep than it is to do the research for yourself. If more and more Americans bought into a flat-earth theory because it was explained in a way that made sense to them using a white board and lots of gesticulating, do I still get to weep for my countrymen? I should hope so.
I choose to get the occasional political commentary from Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart, the twice a month I care to look for it.
By the way, I should be thanking you for posting so late in the game; because of your comment I happened to see my "-1 troll" mod, the first time I think I've ever received that distinguished honor.
Sorry, I posted farther below you, but you sound like you already know the story.
I had to re-read your last sentence to make sure you weren't saying that Glenn Beck is embraced by the mainstream. Because if you were (and if, somehow, that were true) I would weep for my countrymen.
And then I'd slap the shit outta 'em.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/monticello-appeals-court-win.ars
Then, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/want-50mbps-internet-in-your-town-threaten-to-roll-out-your-own.ars
And finally, http://monticellofiber.com/
Wishing I had mod points to give you today, even though you're only an AC... Excellent critical thinking skills, solid "A" material.
See, I think that would "turn on" more than it would "turn off."
IMHO, this is the kind of inventive tinkering that should be pushed forward in today's schools. It takes a lot of different skills from across several disciplines to be able to crank something like this out, but once you see it, you realize how simple it really is. It takes imagination and perseverance as well, and that's hard to teach.
I don't mean to start a "Public schools are apathizing our youth!" thread, but I wonder how many kids would really enjoy classes geared towards making useful projects out of surplus crap - a combining of wood shop, metal shop, and electronics classes.
1) Because no one in charge really gives a crap about a station that barely appears on a country's military budget
2) Because the aforementioned station is just a repeater
3) Security thru obscurity = not having to pay guards with guns
Just some thoughts. There is an unmanned 100kw FM transmitter and 305m tower not far from where I grew up in the farm fields of central MN. Huge Pirate Radio can be yours by picking a 7-pin lock.
I don't think it's German... but it IS on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-x9ygQEGA
You're totally trolling and I should be using my points to mod you down, but instead I'll provide a different outlook for your consideration.
Many people in this country still access the internet using a dial-up 56K modem - many of _them_ are achieving only half that speed, due to physical distances and line quality. They cannot access many of the web's features in any kind of timely manner. However, I don't see a requirement in the bill for broadband access to be made available in gratis to all people regardless of creed, color, marital status or disability. In fact, providing any form of internet or multimedia access is not a requirement laid out anywhere in our laws. People of all disabilities still have to pay for their computers, pay for their internet access, and pay for everyday items to maintain their quality of life. So yes, money is a very important factor.
Innovations in multimedia have been made by consumers spending money in that segment (aka Capitalism), not by the government requiring technology companies to make devices to service a minority. If there is a gaping hole in the way information and multimedia is distributed, you would think there would be companies trying to capitalize on providing services to that minority. Because that's the way it has worked in the past. The future is going that way too, on it's own. It does not need help from soon-to-be-outdated government bills.
It's hard. It's expensive. It won't please everyone. But it is totally worth it for future generations. It takes vision, vision beyond the end of our noses, to realize that.
I was unconsciously filling my diapers half a planet away when Margaret Thatcher was in office; please enlighten me with the specifics and the correlations and I will happily entertain and debate them.
Because from what Wikipedia tells me about the mass privatization that occurred in the UK under Thatcher version 2.0, it doesn't directly compare whatsoever. The Chinese are basically telling 2000 factories that they're outdated inefficient dinosaurs and that they no longer deserve to consume energy, whether they can afford it or not. In effect, industrial eugenics. Thatcher turned a bunch of state-owned utilities and industries over to private companies and let them compete, to whatever end they would. In effect, industrial Darwinism.
These are different concepts with different end results.
From a different perspective, China is only able to get this done because they aren't a democracy. If they had to put it up for discussion and a vote, it would be years of delay, but meanwhile an insane amount of energy would be lost during that delay. In this case their government is swift and able to make decisions promptly "for the greater good."