Prepare for uniformed speculation!

This is what I think is happening. The ridged cylinder has an inlet near the bottom with a cover connected to the piston. As the piston goes out, it sucks the burning alcohol vapour from the flame through the inlet. This is the "flame gulping" bit.

When the crank rotates, it pushes the piston back in, slides the cover closed and compresses the burning alcohol vapour which then pushes the piston back out and the cycle repeats.

Essentially it's a very simple two stroke engine where the fuel is already ignited on intake, so it doesn't need a spark. Clever, but it would suck for fuel efficiency.

I am not an engineer, so there's a pretty good chance I'm wrong about this.\\

edit: Apparently it's a vacuum engine

Isn't FSI simply the 2.5 fuel injected engine?
They might be bringing the superior 1.4 TSI engine to replace the standard 2.5 here (same power and torque but torque peaks at a wider and lower range. And it'd be more fuel efficient. Plus the supercharger and turbocharger sounds bring out the kid in me).

I'd been thinking about the TDI, but for the cost you can get a better equipped petrol engine version. I don't believe I drive enough (not on these quebec roads) to warrant a diesel engine for me

I like the pitch, but that is why I have 300 HP and can get to 60 in around 6 seconds. Fuel efficiency didn't even cross my mind.

Quick American Car companies, kill this one as well. Fuel efficient cars that last longer and driver further on a tank of gas, can't have that. /cynicism off.

Those of us in the nuclear community have discussed turning container-ships like these into a functional civilian nuclear navy. The normal powerhouse in this beast is a Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C, an amazing 107 389.049 horsepower engine, and even though they talk about its fuel efficiency with it...it still burns hundreds of tons of bunker fuel a day (nasty stuff). They also go slower now to burn less fuel in this energy conscience world, whereas a reactor basically has no fuel costs. You wouldn't need a large one either, 80MW or so, so design specs would be very modest.

Whenever I see something like this I always think 'how do the people running these scams get away with it?'

Then I read the comments here and realise people are far too uninformed to understand the problems. I'm not going to say stupid, just uninformed. Physics, science generally and maths are seen as geeky subjects studied by nerds which can be safely ignored by the cool kids because they'll never need them in real life. This leads to the completely uninformed comments above. Anyone who thinks this could work is wrong. If you think it will extend the range you are wrong.

There is a hell of a lot of money to be made from fuel efficiency in cars. Which do you think is more likely: Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Honda, Toyota, Volvo, GM, Dodge, et al with all the hundreds of millions of pounds or dollars or Yen or whatever they spend on development missed something a farmer in China was able to build in his garage - or the farmer in China is wrong? Add to the car makers all the companies who make planes and trains and boats and it shows a pretty obvious fact.

Yep, the Chinese farmer is wrong. Simple.

But the worst thing about this video is that it exists. I'm sure farmers all over the world come up with stupid ideas all the time (as do people from other walks of life too!), but that doesn't mean they need to make a video about it.

This is really just a silly Hyundai Elantra commercial where they also talk to one of the Walking Dead creators about his work. There are roughly 3 different versions of the car depicted, and none of them are feasible.



Of course no one would pick a compact coupe as the foundation for an armored car if they had any kind of choice in the matter (and if they don't, there's no reason to talk about what a great choice their only option is). There are a couple key areas in which this car really shows the limitations of the basic platform (a compact coupe): Height, Carry Capacity.

Basics:
An Elantra weighs about 2,800lbs unmodified (and roughly 3,500 - 4,000 as imagined), has about 150HP (not impressive numbers from a 1.8L engine), and has a sunroof roughly 4'8" feet off the ground.

Height:
The idea of a turret on top of the car for offense is great, except for the part where he's talking about a car with a height of less than 5 feet. The average person is about 5'6" with an arm's reach of at least an extra foot. So, the person in the protected turret is still likely in range (the hypotenuse of an arm reaching to this height would be slightly longer than the ~4'8" car height plus the roughly foot and a half of turret). Have you ever stood out of a compact coupe's sunroof while the car was in motion? There's not a lot of room in that car period, there's certainly no room for a person to stand in the center of it while it's in motion in a high stress situation.

Carry Capacity:
The Elantra has a roughly 900lbs carry capacity (this weight includes driver and passengers, plus armor and such). I'm going to assume the weight of the cow catcher is about equal to an average small truck snow plow (250lbs), and that it's for hitting zombies not clearing the road of vehicles, and I'm going to place a fair shot in the dark of roughly 172.5lbs for the rest of the armor (assuming 7 gauge sheet metal is ideal, and assuming 23 square feet will cover enough glass). So far we've got 477.5lbs of carry capacity for driver, gunner, passengers, and gear. Each person likely weighs roughly 200lbs which means the car has enough capacity to deal with a driver, a single gunner, and two moderately well stocked bags of supplies. Any more than this and the car will start to run into issues, a lot more than this (say, loading it up with passengers and gear) and you risk significant damage to the car's ability to continue driving. All of this assumes they don't want to beef up the rear of the car to allow the vehicle to be able to "safely" ram other obstructions in the road (in a demolition derby drivers drive, and crash into each other, backwards to protect all of the sensitive components in the engine bay).

Other:
The roman chariot style blades on the wheels of a car was tried in an episode of the tv show Top Gear and it threw off the wheel balance to the point of making the car entirely undrivable for any more than a mile or two. Also, just about the last thing you want to do when dealing with zombies is damage their legs because it's much easier to see a zombie walking than a zombie crawling (our soldiers crawl when they want to be harder to see in modern combat for a reason). The general purpose of a compact car is to be accessible (read: inexpensive), and often they utilize a small fuel efficient engine. Increasing the weight of this car by about 40% is not doing any favors to the already under powered car, and the fuel economy is going to suffer. Realistically, speed and acceleration are meaningless (of course the car will exceed the 3 mile per hour average human walking speed).

Improvements:
*Start with a different type of vehicle. Perhaps something that was designed to be large.
*Ignore the mad max spikes.


research tools:
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/elantra/specifications.aspx
http://www.hyundai-forums.com/197-i30-elantra-touring-forum/140546-load-capacity-2012-touring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://www.fisherplows.com/fe/showroom/homesteader
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gauge-sheet-d_915.html
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/sheetmetal.html

Probably quicker, more fuel-efficient and very bad for the environment. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

I want to see a super-hydrophobic boat hull. What would that be like?

didn't mythbusters show that a 300+ HP BMW M3 actually was more fuel efficient on a track than a Prius?

This is one of the biggest differences between the US and the EU. In the US the majority of cars are automatic, which are easy enough for a child to drive; in the EU the opposite is true. Automatic vehicles are also less efficient. It seems strange that the US is one of the few countries with such a penchant for automatic vehicles. Then again, the US has typically had lower taxes on fuel and therefore there is less incentive to opt for fuel efficient vehicles. You only have to look at the US obsession with chronically inefficient SUVs so see that.

Regardless, it is ridiculous that the child even had access to the vehicle and the keys. The report says she was home for 3hrs alone, so that implies that she had a key to the house. At the very least there should be an investigation to see whether the parents are even fit for purpose, as all the evidence points to the contrary.

I'm not so sure using satalites for this is the best idea , given that a solar storm can take them all out in one go and if you have thousands of planes dependent on them with no other system things could get sticky.

( maby gps are within the van allen belt or u can protect them , I always thought gps had to be very high so they can be geo stationary)

At least with current air traffic if ground radar went down its not that huge a issue to just direct through communication , and I think its unlikely that a whole ground radar system would go down in one go.

also the air polotion from planes is pretty bad unless we can make planes that are far more fuel efficient (although planes are better than cars MPG Per Person )then I don't really want to see 3x more planes in the air , I think we should be using hybrid blimp planes that fly at around 150-200mph I think that's probably the future of air transport.


other than that having really tight defined flight paths that are maybe computer controlled and reconfigure to avoid things and reduce holding time would be really cool.

>> ^jmzero:

coughoverratedcough

That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.
He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.
To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.
But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.
There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.


you forgot to cough.

coughoverratedcough


That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.

He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.

To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.

But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.

There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.

Fantastic documentary. I especially like the section towards the end dabbling on the DIY tip; creating community gardens and replanting for a more positive and compassionate America. Their is still hope in farming, if more urban areas grow within their confines this would bring the power back to the people. It brings prosperity and healthy living to communities.

A good example of this is a coop grocer in my neighbor. Workers make all decisions, are paid well and make handsome annual bonuses to the point that workers are able to purchase fuel efficient vehicles and homes in one of the nations most expensive locations. Not only is good for workers and communities but it is good for the planet since farmers grow organically and the produce isn't trucked in from long distances. Fuck the corporations; we need to rebuild America and the philosophies of our two party system will NEVER get us to where most living/breathing human beings want to be.

*eco *commercial here - in this case westy, I would argue that it does make sense - they doubly win by showing that their engineers know how to make random things fun (which indirectly applies to their cars), and shows that by putting the 'fun' into the 'right thing' means there are more creative ways of being eco-friendly without nagging people to death. That translates into eco-features that encourage drivers to be more fuel efficient.

Tales of Prius drivers who want to maximize their fuel efficiency scores supports this theory.