This is one way someone makes pistons. You can't tell me BMW makes them this way. Too much human involved and at 4-8 cylinders per every car you see on the road, way too slow a process.

They have some specs at http://www.artus-motor.com/en/artus-v12-motor/
... but over on the German page they have much more info:

Cooling: Water Cooling
Fuel: Petrol
Fuel consumption: about 0.5L per hour
Displacement: 204 cc
Piston diameter: 27mm
Stroke 30 mm
Speed: 5000 r / min (to be increased significantly)
Weight: ca.9Kg
Power about 12hp (to be increased significantly)

Note:
I think this
"...and career piston is 10 with only 0.1 mm. Works Kg/cm2."
was supposed to mean
"Piston travel is 10 mm with only 0.1 mm Kg/cm2 compression."
But, that's just my guess.

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.

>> ^wolfie:

meh, the 32bit cpu is still more impressive to be honest. but this is still awesome :3


Dunno, there is something a little more hard to plan with pistons and sequential circuits.

I have a pretty interesting and complex robotics project in the works, should be posting it soonish. Problem is, I always get sidetracked with 1000 other side projects. I also don't use creator mode, so everything takes longer.

"Pump me like a piston on an old iron train."

Cheetahs are the reason I like the theory of Persistence Hunting as a way humans evolved into what we are today. Cheetahs very fast but only in short bursts and then they get very tired because of the way their body works...like a piston pumping air in and out of their lungs, makes them tired and they can't regulate their breathing like a human can running on two feet without their body crushing their lungs.

Which means that if we wanted to...we could catch a cheetah eventually by tying it out over a very long distance.

Pretty sure the hydraulic version works the same way, only uses a turbine to spin the gear that drives the piston.

Dick-Pistons? Immediate upvote.

The legs are more like very simple hydraulic muscle than legs. This same type of thing is what will eventually power human augmentation exosuits. Rather than big pistons they will use woven micropiping that flexes and counterflexes just like human physiology.

As for 24 legs, many many legs is how you get a very stable moving platform. Applications besides the obvious like moving space shuttles and delicate buildings around would be mobile buildings, mobile cities, amphibious aicraft carriers, etc.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had a busy weekend.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

I'm going to need a definition of "decide" I suppose. It seems like you are dancing around these squishy intuitive concepts instead of having a specific physical distinction to point out. The amoeboid is composed of a lipid bilayer membrane riddled with intricate protein micro-machines that detect changes in the environment, and behaviorally compensate. To discount the intricacy of the mechanisms of genetic expression and chemical signaling that exist even in the simplest of eukaryotic organism is foolish IMHO. Many of the modern models of genetic expression, and compensation for environmental factors look strikingly similar to the connectionist network models of the brain. The computations are similar in the abstract.


You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Well, more likely I'm moldopomorphizing us. What goals do we have that are ultimately distinct from survival, reproduction, and the general continuity of our species? Even something as seemingly unrelated as making music, or art could be cast as some sort of mating ritual. When you somehow separate our behavior from the rest of life on Earth it's as though you want to draw a barrier between us and them. You want to somehow separate us from the natural order. I hate to break it to you, but it just isn't so. We are just demonstrate the spatial heterogeneity of the second law of thermodynamics.


Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

I experience the moment. In fact, that's all I'm ever experiencing, although my sensation of it may run a little behind. I never experience my memory, I merely compare my experience to memory. Further, what I'm suggesting is not entirely distinct from any experience we claim to have. Some autistic individuals, for instance, report an extremely chaotic existence, in which causal models can't be formed as sensory modalities are not unified in the same way as ours. They are experienced as independent inputs, not reflective of a coherent physical world. Still, they experience it.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

Things can not be enforced without an enforcer. Further, as you've conceded the determinism of our brains, again, how are we not passively allowing the laws of nature to push us around? What exactly are we deciding?


I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

No, I believe that by some other physical mechanism, likely involving quarks and particle physics that I admittedly have a poor understanding of, the electron receives information from not immediately proximal locations, and physically displaces itself to a location with more desirable properties given its current energy state. I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.


You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

Something like that , although I still don't like the word decide. I don't necessarily think they do come to a consensus. It's just that, as with an attractor network, or similar guaranteed convergence dynamical systems, certain macroscopic states are just more likely than others, despite chaos at the subordinate level. The reason I'd rather drop the word decide is because I don't necessarily want to open the door to something like free will. To cast it in a "God" metaphor, I imagine more of an omniscient God, than an omnipotent God.


Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you. I can point you towards literature showing that people that claim to focus on their consciousness can perform physical feats not previous considered possible (for instance monks rewriting the books on the physical tolerance of the human body to cold). Otherwise, I can't. I will say this, however, I take it to be the atomic element of inductive reason. The natural "laws" you are taking as primary are secondary. There is a simple reason for this as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out. If suddenly we were to observe all bits of matter floating away from one another, and were to confirm we were not hallucinating, and perhaps have the experience corroborated by our colleagues, it would not be the experience which was wrong, it would be the laws of nature. Experience has primacy. Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.


And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.


You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

I take the Bayesian sense of the word. All probabilities are subjective degrees of belief. I adopt this degree of belief based on anecdotal experience and generalizations therein. None of this would be accepted as evidence by any reviewer, nor should it, and thus I wouldn't want to risk my credibility by asserting it as fact. I can believe some hypotheses to be more likely than others on the basis of no evidence, and in fact do all the time. That's how I, and all other scientists, decide what experiment to run next. I should not, however, expect you to believe me a priori, as you may operate on different axioms, and draw from different anecdotal experience. Thus, I would not feel compelled to assert my beliefs as fact, other than in so far as they are, in fact, my beliefs.

>> ^bmacs27: How are our actions not "probabilistic events?" The amoeba is operating off the same basic principals.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

It's moving matter in order to seek out food, and even flexing its pseudopods along the shortest path between food sources in proportion to their delivery frequency.

You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Why is memory necessary for experience?

Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

Electrons are "comparing" electric fields when they settle into a state, otherwise they couldn't obey their physical laws.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

As far as I'm concerned an electron is sensing an electrical field in the same way I am sensing visual band EM.

I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

I just believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter.

You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

It's the sheer fact that there is a phenomenal experience, not the particular nature of those phenomena.

Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

You've presented me no evidence that I should only expect phenomenal experience in a complex organism, as you have no test for phenomenal experience.

And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

"I believe that P(X) > P(!X)". Something you shouldn't really care to contest,

You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

Even if the events unfolded just the way Candelaria reported them, there's one small detail missing from this video: his enemies, the Bf 109s, were "Schulungslehrgang Elbe", a suicide ramming squad with pilots who barely knew how to keep the airplanes airborne and planes without radios, armor or armament except for a single MG131 with very limited ammo. The squad might have been led by Oberst Hajo Herrman, a bomber pilot and night fighter pilot - not a proper fighter pilot for single seater like the 109.

You'll notice how they are basically climbing straight up to the bombers. That's either inexperience or they had no time to set up for a proper attack. Normally, you need to gain the altitude advantage in a 109, so you can dominate the fight without resorting to turnfights. As for the Me 262s: they could have easily outclimbed the Mustang, despite his initial altitude advantage. They played his game instead of forcing theirs upon him.

The defensive formation described as the circle was practiced by Bf 110s when they were used as escort fighters, because they were not nearly maneuverable enough to engage Hurricanes or Spitfires. Thus they resorted to a defensive formation, rendering them utterly useless for bomber protection. If 109 pilots employ this "tactic", you know they are as green as they get.

By the way: the fight between Sonderkommando Elbe and the bombers took place over the "Steinhuder Meer", a lake not even 20km from where I'm writing these very words. A memorial can be found in Celle, about 30km from here.

A survivor of the unit, who didn't take part in this sortie though, is Dr. Fritz Marktscheffel, who was active every now and then on Luftwaffe-Forum.de while it was still online.

>> ^Engels:
Kudos where kudos are due...but the 109 was no match for the P-51D and it was very easy to outmanouver those ME-262s. They were very primitive jets with only speed in a straight line on their side.

Can't leave this uncommented, sorry.

The Bf 109K4, deployed at the time of the engagement, outclimbs and outaccelerates the P51D at almost any altitude and has a similar top speed at high altitude. If used correctly - only BnZ, no TnB -, it can dominate the Mustangs. G6, G10 and G14 could hold their own as well. Even though they were inferior, to say they were "no match" is oversimplifying and/or exaggerating. Most Luftwaffe fighters simply had a different flight profile than the others.

Same for the Me 262 - keep to BnZ and no piston engine fighter will stand a chance. Unfortunatly, it's a luxury you can't quite afford if you have to shoot down bombers as quickly as possible, because they are already over your territory. Mustangs could easily outturn them, but they couldn't catch them either unless they started with a significant altitude advantage.

3030 way past the millennium, check it out
Yo, Deltron thunderforce, ain't no other source of sunlight
Two ton mic, leave you toungue-tied
Runnin amuck with technology with no apology
Shoutin out to my colony with third eye physiology
Millennium past apocalypse is all I spit
Make you swallow it - your weak style, I'll abolish it
with nuclear rockets they glued to your optics with sci-fi
Unsettlin, man and metal blends
Underground chillin with the Mole Man, and his whole fam
Inhibit bacterial growth, material wrote
Impenetrable, incontestable, indigestible intelligence
Never let a computer tell me SHIT
It's rapid innovation, penetratin
Artificial life forms, who bite songs
I'm a buy a vest, lie is next, then I'll flip the bio-techs
Right into the wireless; your third eye is hit with psoriasis
The mightiest, Deltron Zero
Traverse and purge the travesties that tempt your earholds
The area of distribution, lifts the clueless
My flow is like, liquid oxygen
Rip it often with specific impulse, increasin thrust
Grease the cuts - unleash a cluster of thoughts I muster
I talk to touch ya, and rupture commercial communications
Convert solar energy, into imagery
In the mind's eye, blindside the contagious
With radioactive isotopes to decay them
Atomic mass they small as fragments
I magnetize the avid lies
My radiation shields reflects, rejects Decepticons
who take the truth and stretch it long, while I bless a song
Next level incredible, metal melding
Flexability and my engine is never failing

All your rhyme histories combined couldn't violate
the Prime Optimus operative
Use my hydrometer to see how warm you are, watch me form a star
Hydrogen turned to helium when I shine
Ridin 'em revealin 'em leadin 'em to the vacuum
Interact with tunes in my digital citadel
Critical pivotal with the mental shit on you
Spit infinity, hiden energies too dope for our planet
Star spannin, slammin hymms with
mechanical limbs, scanning your lens
with cosmic rays, you'll all get played, your brain's inferior
I hit the lateral AND posterior
My science is eerier
Ionic bonding for your moronic pondering, meet the armorines
My micro machines, might throw your team, into paralysis
They not talented, just a malady
Worry 'bout a salary, creative casualty
Couldn't defrag my power density intensity
Nonequivalence, nine hundred Newtons
Crush you like croutons, you plus Houston
Hiero's like dipoles inside a silo
Turbulence ten-fold, never simple
Defies accepted methods development most unique
Paralyze central nervous when you close to me
Interstellar void fills with color, appears to bubble
and split into four like amoeba
Inhabitin planets with, grandiose boast
and coast like Silver Surfer, feel the purpoise
High velocity, verbal atrocities
Fire resistance, better hire assistants
My pistons glisten ultra, high performance
Inside your private quarters where I fry your components

>> ^rottenseed:
I like the fact that no matter how advanced our energy technology gets, the end of the process always takes the basic form of heating water into steam...


Hah yeah me too. Though that's the nature of the universe, so we probably shouldn't find it that funny. Everything results in heat. That's why we're here right now, with the big burning gas heater in the sky above us keeping us all moving around. You get heat with most things even if it's just as a side effect or 'wasted' energy. So i suppose it's no big surprise that, as most forms of energy dissipate as heat, if you want to generate energy from something else, you have to go via heat.