People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
I think that's a contemptible statement and anyone who modded it up should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr Van Gogh's "propaganda" film as you put it was an artistic rendition of the story of abused women in Muslim countries. He was shot to death in broad daylight in an Amsterdam street for daring to shine a light on the Islamic world's despicable record on womens' rights, and a note was left on the knife buried in his chest (after the murderer tried to decapitate the body) warning that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of religious-inspired abuse in Somalia, would be next. So yes, people in the US and UK criticized this cold blooded murder and rightly so.
Trying to equate his work to the hate-mongering rants of genocidal jihadist barbarians is beneath contempt.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).
The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.
Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)
The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.
Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,
eternal life in a harem full of virgins
isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?
Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
This is the same argument that was used to allow hate radio to carry on inciting the genocide in Rwanda. The US government and the international community could have insisted on the closure of the radio stations that were cranking out non stop round-the-clock anti-Tutsi propaganda and telling the killers where to go in search of more Tutsis to slaughter, but they didn't because it would have violated their "free speech" principles.
Wake up and smell the coffee, people. You might be an intelligent person, you might be able to listen to propaganda and recognise it for what it is, but that doesn't apply to everyone. You only have to look at the US itself where Fox News now gets major ratings and a significant proportion of the population has actually swallowed the unfounded lie that President Obama is a Muslim.
We live in a world where there are brainwashed, violent extremists who are driven by a hatred of all things western and will stop at nothing to kill civilians in pursuit of Jihad. They are easily influenced by this crap. Wishful thinking about everyone's intelligence is going to get us nowhere, especially in an age when Islamic fundamentalist barbarians could be dangerously close to getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.
It's time to put the "all free speech is wonderful" ideology into a bit of perspective. And as much as I hate to Godwin the thread, there was a certain Austrian dude in the 1930s who was able to make ample use of his right to free speech to great effect. Which was greater, his right to free speech or the right to life of a million Jews? Don't tell me his right to free speech was greater - it wasn't. Pure and simple.
You see here's the difference between US and European attitudes to free speech. In Europe, war actually took place on home turf. Yes WWII claimed a lot of American lives, but the actual combat never reached the continental US, whereas it most certainly reached European soil. WWII casts long shadows, and it's for that reason that Europeans are a bit more tetchy about letting anyone say anything that might incite a mob, because that can lead to the darkest places imaginable. In a world of nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalist barbarians who hate our civilisation, I find unfettered freedom of speech a whole lot more scary than a few reasonable curbs on hate speech.
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
Western women have the freedom to drive cars, associate with non-family males, leave their hair uncovered, and have control over who they have sex with. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
Western people have the freedom to commit adultery, choose their own religious belief system, leave the Islamic faith, and a multitude of other freedoms. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
You know I used to subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was self-inflicted and a result of US foreign policy. I cringed when I heard GW Bush claim that "they hate us for our freedoms" and dismissed it as another soundbite written by Rove. But the more I learn about Islam and the violent reactions that emanate from it at the slightest provocation (the equivalent of many of which would not bat a Christian/Jewish/atheist eyelid) the more I become convinced that there is something inherently sick about its fundamentalist extremes and there comes a point when we have to stop making excuses for them. None of the 9/11 hijackers were poor or oppressed by Western interests. They were educated middle class people who had been brainwashed by their religion into thinking that if they obeyed one of the numerous verses of the Koran that calls for the death of infidels (yes, there are many) then they would be granted eternal life in a harem full of virgins!
Enough of this excuse-making for suicide murderers. They are brainwashed, psychotic barbarians who are driven by a religious ideology, they are convinced that they have the almighty on their side, and we have entered a time when they are dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons. They are the biggest threat to civilization. Ever. Period.
So you'd rather stick up for your health insurer's right to deny you health coverage because of pre-existing conditions? There are more direct ways of committing suicide than voting for mad hatters, you know.
"This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO."
What fucking planet do you live on? You do realize that the center is to the left of the Democratic party and to the far left of the Republican party? Put another way, Obama is best described as a moderate conservative.
Proportional representation might or might not be a good idea. But don't think for second that it will bring politics closer to the center. It will do the opposite. If you think otherwise, look to Europe. Of course, that means there could actually be true liberals and socialists in the government in large numbers.
This is the kind of uncivil nonsense I'm talking about. I'm well aware that American politics are skewed to the right and that Britain's Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, would be hounded out of the GOP for being a Bolshevik, thank you very much.
And yes I'm looking at Europe. What do you want me to do now? I'm seeing a landscape where most parties have all tried to move to the center.
I'm sure you have an interesting point to make. Please make it.
See what I mean about extremists? A mad hatter comes on here and claims that his fellow mad hatters are the moderates! For his next trick he'll claim that the Earth is flat and anyone who doesn't believe it is un-American.
If you feel strongly enough about fixing the broken system*
You mean like John McCain, who's been saying that the system is broken since at least 1989? You'd think that at some point he'd be able to either realise that he's fighting an un-winnable battle or just give up.
You must have been watching The Daily Show too then. I was gonna mention that but it wasn't really relevant to my point. It was a funny series of clips though!
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
I take it we won't hear you complaining when things go wrong then.
American public: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time." T+4 years: "Wow, those Democrats sure fucked everything up. Better vote Republican!" T+8 years: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
Umm, people? We have other choices, you know. The extremes of *any* party are going to be nut-jobs, but we can probably do a lot better to let the D's and R's set a few rounds out.
But we won't, will we. Because voting is supposed to be about thinking with other people's brains and voting with the flock.
It sounds insane, but as long as you have this winner-take-all voting system then you're always going to have two dominant parties. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the broken system* then what you should be campaigning for is a Proportional Representation voting system where you vote for as many candidates as you want in ranked choice. This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO. You'd also see a lot more people registering as independents and better quality candidates defecting to the smaller parties and making them more credible, whereas right now anyone who's serious about getting elected has to pick their poison, R or D, and hold their nose and run on that ticket.
Don't forget all the government subsidies they surely hope to attract in the process. In America, that's how markets work.
It's actually how it works in a lot of countries. If you look at the aerospace industry, look at the Boeing/Airbus dust up over subsidies. Boeing claims that Airbus's state support is unfair, Airbus counter argues the military-industrial complex that keeps Boeing afloat.
To get back closer to the topic, let's not forget that all the engines and cars in the world would be useless without a government to build roads on which they run. Sure Henry Ford revolutionised the assembly line, but only Uncle Sam could build the interstates.
There's a role for industry and a role for government, and occasionally they will mingle. It's okay to let the government do things. The anti government attitude is one that non-Americans frequently find bemusing. You live in the richest, most free and open society in the world, and some of you* complain about 'tyranny' whenever a few percentage points are added to your tax bills by your democratically elected representatives. Boggles the mind.
*Not necessarily you personally, I'm making a general point.
What I see is: Significant increase in complexity - three piston rods per cylinder, six crankshaft attachments to rods per cylinder pair - plus piston rods on the outside of the engine block.
True, but: no camshafts, no timing belts, no valves.
Opposed piston motors have been around since the 40s in terms of innovative designs.
Not this one. It has two pistons per cylinder pushing away from each other, opposing cylinders are assembled into a stackable unit, and individual units can be shut down when not needed.
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?
Titanium horseshoes probably would have been useful (if expensive) when the vast majority of the world's transport system still depended heavily on the horse, just like it still depends on the internal combustion engine today. When the ICE becomes obsolete, then your titanium horseshoe analogy will become relevant.
Traffic lights a great place for hybrids. You can keep your heater or A/C running, while the main gasoline engine is off. This not just saves fuel, but wear and tear on the engine, as well as potential overheating if the radiator fan isn't up to snuff.
It doesn't have to be batteries. I've heard about PT Cruisers actually kill the engine at lights and use the starter motor for slow traffic movement, firing up the main engine when the accelerator is pushed down for real.
Even if this OTOC engine didn't have a hybrid setup to go with it, it could do something similar. Some of its cylinder pairs could be shut down when less power is needed.
I not a car guy. So, will someone explain to me how this differs from a boxer engine?
Everyone seems to be struggling with this this morning. Watch the linked video. Each cylinder has two pistons pushing away from each other. Each pair of opposing cylinders is a unit that can be connected to other units using a clutch that allows some units to be shut down when energy needs are smaller.
Yeah but he is claiming this to be the future and it isn't. It's still burning up precious sources that we need to protect for future-use. We have used up all the worlds oil-reserve that took millions of years to make in 150 year. That is insane. Who knows what we can use oil for with future inventions. The future of cars really is in the renewable energy. You only have to look at the Dutch University of Twente. Where they have engines that take you 1000km to a liter fuel. Why? Well the damn thing just runs on solarpower when possible. That is the future. This is just an engine that isn't the most efficient by a long shot. He should have made this engine 40 years ago, when the small savings of oil would have made a difference. In this day and time we have technology that is just years ahead of this engine.
Fine. Halt all R&D on the ICE then. Let's keep chugging along with the fuel consumption we've got now until we reach the utopia of nuclear fusion.
I don't see how it's a big deal having conrods "outside" the block (they're actually inside, but they're alongside the piston instead of under it). Don't forget it's a two-stroke, so you don't have the added complexity of camshafts, valves, timing belts etc.
So, they get power out of every stroke using two cylinders, instead of every other stroke using one cylinder.
Is this one of those "don't look behind the curtain" advances?
No, it's one of those RTFA advances. There's more to this puppy than just being a two stroke two cylinder engine. It uses two pistons per cylinder, each pair of opposing cylinders acts as an independent unit, some of which can be shut down when energy needs are less. This is a significantly innovative design.
I do despair of the cognitive skills of today's/. audience. Were you all out on the rampage last night celebrating Halloween? Sober yourselves up and understand the damn article before you post the obligatory "this is nothing new and I'm gonna piss on TFA like the know-all I am" response.
He didn't. Go back and watch the video. It's not a regular flat 4. It has two pistons per cylinder, each pair of cylinders acts as a unit that can be shut down when energy needs are smaller.
You think that the EV's are being powered by unicorn tears? No. It is coal. Shifting the problem to larger plants may seem to make it more efficient, but then you remember we have to build these EV cars and no one knows exactly how bad they are for the environment in the long run. I highly doubt refining thousands of 'rare earth minerals' and then dumping them back into the planet is a good idea.
One smokestack is easier to regulate than a squillion exhaust pipes. There's also the matter of making cities more livable. I love sitting outside cafes in San Francisco while those trolley buses purr along silently. If it were a diesel engined bus you wouldn't be able to hear yourself think, especially when straining to get up those hills.
Slashdot Mirror
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
I think that's a contemptible statement and anyone who modded it up should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr Van Gogh's "propaganda" film as you put it was an artistic rendition of the story of abused women in Muslim countries. He was shot to death in broad daylight in an Amsterdam street for daring to shine a light on the Islamic world's despicable record on womens' rights, and a note was left on the knife buried in his chest (after the murderer tried to decapitate the body) warning that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of religious-inspired abuse in Somalia, would be next. So yes, people in the US and UK criticized this cold blooded murder and rightly so.
Trying to equate his work to the hate-mongering rants of genocidal jihadist barbarians is beneath contempt.
Shame on you!
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).
The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.
Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)
The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.
Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,
isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?
Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
This is the same argument that was used to allow hate radio to carry on inciting the genocide in Rwanda. The US government and the international community could have insisted on the closure of the radio stations that were cranking out non stop round-the-clock anti-Tutsi propaganda and telling the killers where to go in search of more Tutsis to slaughter, but they didn't because it would have violated their "free speech" principles.
Wake up and smell the coffee, people. You might be an intelligent person, you might be able to listen to propaganda and recognise it for what it is, but that doesn't apply to everyone. You only have to look at the US itself where Fox News now gets major ratings and a significant proportion of the population has actually swallowed the unfounded lie that President Obama is a Muslim.
We live in a world where there are brainwashed, violent extremists who are driven by a hatred of all things western and will stop at nothing to kill civilians in pursuit of Jihad. They are easily influenced by this crap. Wishful thinking about everyone's intelligence is going to get us nowhere, especially in an age when Islamic fundamentalist barbarians could be dangerously close to getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.
It's time to put the "all free speech is wonderful" ideology into a bit of perspective. And as much as I hate to Godwin the thread, there was a certain Austrian dude in the 1930s who was able to make ample use of his right to free speech to great effect. Which was greater, his right to free speech or the right to life of a million Jews? Don't tell me his right to free speech was greater - it wasn't. Pure and simple.
You see here's the difference between US and European attitudes to free speech. In Europe, war actually took place on home turf. Yes WWII claimed a lot of American lives, but the actual combat never reached the continental US, whereas it most certainly reached European soil. WWII casts long shadows, and it's for that reason that Europeans are a bit more tetchy about letting anyone say anything that might incite a mob, because that can lead to the darkest places imaginable. In a world of nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalist barbarians who hate our civilisation, I find unfettered freedom of speech a whole lot more scary than a few reasonable curbs on hate speech.
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
Western women have the freedom to drive cars, associate with non-family males, leave their hair uncovered, and have control over who they have sex with. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
Western people have the freedom to commit adultery, choose their own religious belief system, leave the Islamic faith, and a multitude of other freedoms. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
You know I used to subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was self-inflicted and a result of US foreign policy. I cringed when I heard GW Bush claim that "they hate us for our freedoms" and dismissed it as another soundbite written by Rove. But the more I learn about Islam and the violent reactions that emanate from it at the slightest provocation (the equivalent of many of which would not bat a Christian/Jewish/atheist eyelid) the more I become convinced that there is something inherently sick about its fundamentalist extremes and there comes a point when we have to stop making excuses for them. None of the 9/11 hijackers were poor or oppressed by Western interests. They were educated middle class people who had been brainwashed by their religion into thinking that if they obeyed one of the numerous verses of the Koran that calls for the death of infidels (yes, there are many) then they would be granted eternal life in a harem full of virgins!
Enough of this excuse-making for suicide murderers. They are brainwashed, psychotic barbarians who are driven by a religious ideology, they are convinced that they have the almighty on their side, and we have entered a time when they are dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons. They are the biggest threat to civilization. Ever. Period.
So you'd rather stick up for your health insurer's right to deny you health coverage because of pre-existing conditions? There are more direct ways of committing suicide than voting for mad hatters, you know.
"This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO."
What fucking planet do you live on? You do realize that the center is to the left of the Democratic party and to the far left of the Republican party? Put another way, Obama is best described as a moderate conservative.
Proportional representation might or might not be a good idea. But don't think for second that it will bring politics closer to the center. It will do the opposite. If you think otherwise, look to Europe. Of course, that means there could actually be true liberals and socialists in the government in large numbers.
This is the kind of uncivil nonsense I'm talking about. I'm well aware that American politics are skewed to the right and that Britain's Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, would be hounded out of the GOP for being a Bolshevik, thank you very much.
And yes I'm looking at Europe. What do you want me to do now? I'm seeing a landscape where most parties have all tried to move to the center.
I'm sure you have an interesting point to make. Please make it.
See what I mean about extremists? A mad hatter comes on here and claims that his fellow mad hatters are the moderates! For his next trick he'll claim that the Earth is flat and anyone who doesn't believe it is un-American.
You mean like John McCain, who's been saying that the system is broken since at least 1989? You'd think that at some point he'd be able to either realise that he's fighting an un-winnable battle or just give up.
You must have been watching The Daily Show too then. I was gonna mention that but it wasn't really relevant to my point. It was a funny series of clips though!
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
I take it we won't hear you complaining when things go wrong then.
American public: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
T+4 years: "Wow, those Democrats sure fucked everything up. Better vote Republican!"
T+8 years: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
Umm, people? We have other choices, you know. The extremes of *any* party are going to be nut-jobs, but we can probably do a lot better to let the D's and R's set a few rounds out.
But we won't, will we. Because voting is supposed to be about thinking with other people's brains and voting with the flock.
It sounds insane, but as long as you have this winner-take-all voting system then you're always going to have two dominant parties. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the broken system* then what you should be campaigning for is a Proportional Representation voting system where you vote for as many candidates as you want in ranked choice. This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO. You'd also see a lot more people registering as independents and better quality candidates defecting to the smaller parties and making them more credible, whereas right now anyone who's serious about getting elected has to pick their poison, R or D, and hold their nose and run on that ticket.
Don't forget all the government subsidies they surely hope to attract in the process.
In America, that's how markets work.
It's actually how it works in a lot of countries. If you look at the aerospace industry, look at the Boeing/Airbus dust up over subsidies. Boeing claims that Airbus's state support is unfair, Airbus counter argues the military-industrial complex that keeps Boeing afloat.
To get back closer to the topic, let's not forget that all the engines and cars in the world would be useless without a government to build roads on which they run. Sure Henry Ford revolutionised the assembly line, but only Uncle Sam could build the interstates.
There's a role for industry and a role for government, and occasionally they will mingle. It's okay to let the government do things. The anti government attitude is one that non-Americans frequently find bemusing. You live in the richest, most free and open society in the world, and some of you* complain about 'tyranny' whenever a few percentage points are added to your tax bills by your democratically elected representatives. Boggles the mind.
*Not necessarily you personally, I'm making a general point.
To be fair, it wasn't a very good FA. I read it myself but still didn't fully get it until I watched the video.
What I see is: Significant increase in complexity - three piston rods per cylinder, six crankshaft attachments to rods per cylinder pair - plus piston rods on the outside of the engine block.
True, but: no camshafts, no timing belts, no valves.
Opposed piston motors have been around since the 40s in terms of innovative designs.
Not this one. It has two pistons per cylinder pushing away from each other, opposing cylinders are assembled into a stackable unit, and individual units can be shut down when not needed.
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?
Titanium horseshoes probably would have been useful (if expensive) when the vast majority of the world's transport system still depended heavily on the horse, just like it still depends on the internal combustion engine today. When the ICE becomes obsolete, then your titanium horseshoe analogy will become relevant.
Traffic lights a great place for hybrids. You can keep your heater or A/C running, while the main gasoline engine is off. This not just saves fuel, but wear and tear on the engine, as well as potential overheating if the radiator fan isn't up to snuff.
It doesn't have to be batteries. I've heard about PT Cruisers actually kill the engine at lights and use the starter motor for slow traffic movement, firing up the main engine when the accelerator is pushed down for real.
Even if this OTOC engine didn't have a hybrid setup to go with it, it could do something similar. Some of its cylinder pairs could be shut down when less power is needed.
I not a car guy. So, will someone explain to me how this differs from a boxer engine?
Everyone seems to be struggling with this this morning. Watch the linked video. Each cylinder has two pistons pushing away from each other. Each pair of opposing cylinders is a unit that can be connected to other units using a clutch that allows some units to be shut down when energy needs are smaller.
Yeah but he is claiming this to be the future and it isn't. It's still burning up precious sources that we need to protect for future-use. We have used up all the worlds oil-reserve that took millions of years to make in 150 year. That is insane. Who knows what we can use oil for with future inventions. The future of cars really is in the renewable energy. You only have to look at the Dutch University of Twente. Where they have engines that take you 1000km to a liter fuel. Why? Well the damn thing just runs on solarpower when possible. That is the future. This is just an engine that isn't the most efficient by a long shot. He should have made this engine 40 years ago, when the small savings of oil would have made a difference. In this day and time we have technology that is just years ahead of this engine.
Fine. Halt all R&D on the ICE then. Let's keep chugging along with the fuel consumption we've got now until we reach the utopia of nuclear fusion.
I don't see how it's a big deal having conrods "outside" the block (they're actually inside, but they're alongside the piston instead of under it). Don't forget it's a two-stroke, so you don't have the added complexity of camshafts, valves, timing belts etc.
it's just one of these, basically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine .
In the Bourke engine the pistons move in the same direction at the same time. In this guy's engine the pistons move away from each other.
So, they get power out of every stroke using two cylinders, instead of every other stroke using one cylinder.
Is this one of those "don't look behind the curtain" advances?
No, it's one of those RTFA advances. There's more to this puppy than just being a two stroke two cylinder engine. It uses two pistons per cylinder, each pair of opposing cylinders acts as an independent unit, some of which can be shut down when energy needs are less. This is a significantly innovative design.
I do despair of the cognitive skills of today's /. audience. Were you all out on the rampage last night celebrating Halloween? Sober yourselves up and understand the damn article before you post the obligatory "this is nothing new and I'm gonna piss on TFA like the know-all I am" response.
Maker of supposedly cleaner engines thinks that cleaner engines is a better idea than electric vehicles. In other news, maker of windmills.....
Stop right there. The name's turbine. Wind turbine. I don't grind corn anymore.
So basically you made a two-stroke flat-four.
He didn't. Go back and watch the video. It's not a regular flat 4. It has two pistons per cylinder, each pair of cylinders acts as a unit that can be shut down when energy needs are smaller.
I see a lot of buzzwords, but the few words with some real content in it makes it seem like this is just a two-stroke boxer engine.
It isn't. Go back and read it again and watch the linked video.
You think that the EV's are being powered by unicorn tears? No. It is coal. Shifting the problem to larger plants may seem to make it more efficient, but then you remember we have to build these EV cars and no one knows exactly how bad they are for the environment in the long run. I highly doubt refining thousands of 'rare earth minerals' and then dumping them back into the planet is a good idea.
One smokestack is easier to regulate than a squillion exhaust pipes. There's also the matter of making cities more livable. I love sitting outside cafes in San Francisco while those trolley buses purr along silently. If it were a diesel engined bus you wouldn't be able to hear yourself think, especially when straining to get up those hills.
go back a bit further, radial engines used on most pre ww2 aircraft.
This is similar to radial engines but it's quite different in having two pistons per cylinder. See video.