Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Cool stuff. Thanks for that.

>> ^BoneRemake:

@dag
Air cooled engines work fine because they have that massive flow of air around the cylinders, some day I will own one like this.

@dag

Air cooled engines work fine because they have that massive flow of air around the cylinders, some day I will own one like this.




as well as liquid cooled this 15 cc is pretty neat, but the video kind of sucks

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well then, I would like to see the smallest possible V12 where this was possible. Surely you could go pretty small. >> ^BoneRemake:

@dag
@Boise_Lib
The main problem is not the fuel to air mixture rate, the spark plugs/distributor or anything that would deal with making the cylinders fire, I speculate the main problem is heat. Having the engine liquid cooled with pump and radiator would not work, it would generate to much heat or it would be to difficult to produce the veins the coolant goes through, not to mention you would need it to be lubricated with oil pump etc.
I think they use air because it gets the parts moving and produces a rotational output, to make it fire on vapors would be a very difficult task.

@dag
@Boise_Lib

The main problem is not the fuel to air mixture rate, the spark plugs/distributor or anything that would deal with making the cylinders fire, I speculate the main problem is heat. Having the engine liquid cooled with pump and radiator would not work, it would generate to much heat or it would be to difficult to produce the veins the coolant goes through, not to mention you would need it to be lubricated with oil pump etc.

I think they use air because it gets the parts moving and produces a rotational output, to make it fire on vapors would be a very difficult task.

After 7 minutes my mouth was dry--I realized I'd been sitting watching this with my mouth hanging open.

Google translation from the Spanish Youtube description:

Engine V-12 naval air injection hand-built craftsmanship. Perhaps it is the engine in the world smallest of this modality. It has 12 cm3 of displacement, the cylinder bore is 11.3 mm and career piston is 10 with only 0.1 mm. Works Kg/cm2. This is constructed with stainless steel, aluminum and bronze. This motor is dedicated to Patel and her 4 oldest grandchildren Sarah, Carmen, Jose and Paul.

why is he stood next to Berlin wall and why is this been recorded on a Phonograph cylinder ?

but nice.

Here there is a valid and very much apparent difference in price, Manual transmissions are less expensive. Do you understand what happens to the engine when you pop the clutch ? granted it may not work with a completely dead battery but with one that will light up the interior lights you should be good to push start one, all it takes is two or three good cylinder fires and you got an engine thats started and running off the alternator.

That method of starting has saved my ass so many times in the past I am still grateful.

In reply to this comment by jimnms:
Are you talking about manual transmissions? Most American cars come "standard" with an auto trans, and sometimes charge extra for a manual. I also doubt push starting a modern car with electronic fuel injection and computer controlled everything would work.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Good ol' standards, it is for this reason alone I would buy my next vehicle as a standard.
Battery not charged?
starter screwed ?
give it a push and on your way.
not to mention the general thousand dollar difference between the two transmissions.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I would have liked to see them move the cylinder away.


Me too. I think we'd find that the shadow mysteriously remains.

You make a good point here. This is actually quite different from the original illusion. The original demonstrated that our perception of color is based on context (e.g. the tile in the shadow is perceived as being lighter than the one not in shadow, even though their "absolute" color values are the same). If you were to create a physical model of the original by taking a normal checkerboard and shining a light on it, then moved the middle tile on top of a tile of the "opposite" color, as they do in this video, you would see that the tiles ARE in fact different colors. So really your brain is seeing things correctly from a contextual point of view, in that it's separating the surface color of the object from the color contributed by the light/shadow. If our brains didn't work this way we would have a lot of trouble navigating the world.

What I believe they've done in the video that's different from the spirit of the original illusion, is create a fake shadow. The "shadow" is actually painted onto the tiles (and also, importantly, the cylinder). If you were to take one of the darker tiles in the shadow and place it on top of the another dark tile, you'd find they're not the same shade, even though we assume they should be the same (the 'shadowed' tile would be darker by comparison). Notice that there is actually a rather bright light source pointing at the shadowed area, in which case the shadow only makes physical sense if the light source on the left is MUCH brighter, which is not the case. By the way, there is something of a shadow created by the light source on the left, but it is set up to be as subtle as possible and not have much real contribution to the image.

Your assertion that it's rendered in 3D could be correct, but this illusion should be possible to do (and much more cheaply!) without it.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.

I would have liked to see them move the cylinder away.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.


I don't think they used any rendering. If you pause it at 0:58, you can see that her arm is equally lit where it should be in shadow and where it is in full light. I think it is done with the lighting that is coming in from offscreen in the bottom right corner to subtly illuminate the shadow of the cylinder.
Strangely, at 0:58 it's also more obvious that the two squares are the same shade.

My master cylinder dance is slightly different.

*promote

Holy Fucking Shit!! V16... Eight cylinders on each side.. NINE FUCKING LITERS. I thought my 6.2 was a pretty decent size. O.o

Jolly good track time too!

Big deal, 1st graders make batteries out of freaking potatoes. You don't know what it was used for or what specific purpose it was created for. That does not mean that it was a battery in the sense that you mean it.

You're stretching the "computer" a little bit, while technically the object in question "might have" been a computer, so is an abacus, and we don't get all up in arms over those.

What then? A drawing that looks like a helicopter? Give me a break, one drawing that looks like something does not a theory make.

Those gold items of jewelry? You saw quite clearly in the history channel video that the "model" the guy built was, speaking in terms of aeronautics, totally different. The cylinder that ran the whole length of the piece of jewelry needed to be thinned out on the flying model until it was just a twig where it met the tail. Again, speaking in terms of aeronautics, that's WAAAAY different. Don't you think it might be a more acceptable theory to say that it's a piece of jewelry that merely resembles a modern airplane? Wait, what am I saying, it's not a theory, because the fact that two pieces of jewelry that happen to look like something else does not make a theory.

Either way, science is full of anomalies, that's because science can't explain everything. Because rational people don't expect it to. Don't apply the omniscient, omnipotent aspects of god to science, because they don't make any rational sense there either.

Shit, I just have to say that watching this terrible video with this annoying used car salesmen was one of the hardest things I've done all week. And it proves nothing. This guy is just cherry picking from ideas that his poor warped brain does not have the ability to comprehend.

I'm not avoiding science because I don't accept this guy's premise. This guy is avoiding science by proposing it.

Stewart is firing on all cylinders here