Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought it was simply transmitting electricity, not creating it. I was thinking it would work as a sensor where, when it's stretched passed the limit, it will no longer have continuity and could sound an alert.
If I'm wrong and it does MAKE voltage, then yes, synthetic muscles for anything really, not just prosthetics, but androids, underwater machines, etc.

It seems like high quality industrial silicone.
The ionic version was awesome, and could make a stretch great sensor.

Wow. If you have a minute; what gets a camera up to that cost? the sensors? the glass?

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

Woah, woah, you're way overstating it. The tech is nowhere near ready for full hands-off driving in non-ideal driving scenarios. For basic navigation Google relies on maps and GPS, but the crux of autonomous navigation is machine learning algorithms. Through many hours of data logged driving, the algorithm will associate more and more accurately certain sensor inputs to certain hazards via equation selection and coefficients. The assumption is that at some point the algorithm would be able to accurately and reliably identify and react to pedestrians, pot holes, construction areas, temporary traffic lights police stops among an almost endless litany of possible hazards.

They're nowhere near there though and there's simply no guarantee that it will ever be sufficiently reliable to be truly hands-off. As mentioned, the algorithm is just an equation with certain coefficients. Our brains don't work that way when we drive. An algorithm may never have the necessary complexity or flexibility to capture the possibility of novel and unexpected events in all driving scenarios. The numbers Google quotes on reliability from its test driving are on well mapped, simple to navigate roads like highways with few of these types of challenges but real life is not like that. In practice, the algorithm may be safer than humans for something like 99% of scenarios (which I agree could in itself make driving safer) but those exceptional 1% of scenarios that our brains are uniquely able to process will still require us to be ready to take over.

As for Tesla, all it has is basically auto-cruise, auto-steer and lane changing on request. The first two is just the car keeping in lane based on lane marker input from sensors, and slowing down & speeding up based on the car follow length you give it. The most advanced part of it is the changing lanes if you indicate it to, which will effectively avoid other cars and merge. It doesn't navigate, it's basically just for highways, and even on those it won't make your exit for you (and apparently will sometimes dive into exits you didn't want based on lane marker confusion from what I've read). So basically this is either staged or this guy is an idiot.

Take the time to invest in sensors. It's well worth it. These will show up on your map if you do.

Could be, perhaps that's a safer option as well? (chamber integrity). Traditional Si/SiO CCD's are OK in the presence of high fields though. Modified linescan CCD's with MOS sensors replacing the photodiodes have actually been used as magnetic sensors for high discrimination applications in different fields in physics and chemistry, located at times in high pressure vessels at the focal point of some fairly high fields (12 to 20 T). But I still can't figure out how to use my GoPro. Have fun.

I've repeatedly discounted your comments, but I simply can't seem to make headway.

The F4E ICE was a modified German version of the F4E. It had much better engines than any other version of the craft, a dedicated WSO, and it still only barely outperformed the F16. The other F4 variants absolutely did not turn better or have a higher rate of climb than the F16.

Dogfighting hasn't been around since WW1? Are you crazy? What would you call the numerous dogfighting techniques developed during WWII? Admittedly there was a drop off in dogfighting during the Korean War, but that was because we were shifting to jets as our primary fighters and people didn't have the speeds worked out. When we went to Vietnam, we found that many times the planes were so fast they were closing into gun range before they could get a missile solution. Hence the creation of the Fighter Weapons School (aka TopGun).

The Air Force couldn't believe it was a skill issue and decided to go a different way, loading more sensors and different cannon onto the airplanes. They still relied on missiles primarily, assuming that dogfighting was DEAD. Well, after some time passed, Navy kill to loss ratios went from 3.7-1 to 13-1 and (SURPRISE) Air Force kill to loss ratios got even worse.

After this, the Air Force quietly created their own DACT program, unwilling to be vocal about how wrong they were. Now, if you primarily play video games about air sorties, you might get the idea that you get a lock a couple of miles before you even see the enemy, confirm the engagement, click a button, and then fly back home. Actual pilots will be glad to set you straight on that, since you might have to get close to the intruding craft and follow them, waiting. What happens when you get close? Dogfights happen.

As far as the capability of the plane, of course it is going to fail tests. But the problem is that, like in the case of the Marine's test, so much money has been invested in this plane that people are ignoring the failures because they are scared the program is going to get shut down. Realistically, that just is going to increase the time this plane takes to get ready for service, increase the costs, and it isn't going to fix the underlying problems in the design of the craft.

I don't know what else I can say. The plane is going to turn out to be a much more expensive version of the F22 and it will most likely quietly be cancelled later down the line like the F22 was. The bad thing is, the government will immediately jump to the next jack of all trades plane and once again we will find it is a master of none.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

Overpriced? Definitely. But turd? no chance. F-35's would be covering other F-35's. In the unlikely case of someone getting in that close. As soon as an enemy plane (somehow magically gets by all defenses and sensors) pops up behind a fellow pilot, they'd be getting shot down by another F-35.

You might have a valid point with the electronic warfare, but it comes with it's own disadvantages. For example as soon as someone starts jamming, they appear hostile (or atleast "unknown")to even their own friendly forces. So it has to be used appropriately. Jamming also only works at certain ranges, and once you are close enough there are ways to get around it.
Jamming also means that you're broadcasting your own position. It definitely makes things harder for the enemy, but it's not a show stopper.

Continuing the sniper analogy. If for some reason the sniper was alone and not part of a combined force, and someone did sneak up on him with a sword then he might be in trouble. Yet do you see snipers being trained with swords in the military? No, because it's so unlikely to happen. But still they carry a knife just in case. As does the F-35. Missiles that shoot almost backwards and a cannon in case sensors fail.


These 40 year old pieces of shit you are talking about are flying at the limits of physics for human pilots by the way

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

The F-35 can fly both faster, and slower than the F-16, and longer at high angles of attack that would stall most planes. It although can't out accelerate the F-16 though since F-35 is heavier. But having the best acceleration isn't really a factor in modern air combat, where missiles are being thrown at each other from any between 20-100+km's range. As long as you can accelerate good enough, which being a fighter plane it can.

The F-35's afterburner-less supersonic speed is more important in a BVR(beyond visual range) engagement, since that's what allows you to put more distance between you and an enemy missile. The idea being that you fly perpendicular to a missile making it cover more ground and it runs out of fuel and speed so it falls out of the sky before it can reach you. Of course to lock onto a stealth plane you'd need to be quite close in the first place, by which time it would have shot you down, at least that's the theory.

If it comes to a close range scenario, say enemy AWACS manages to detect the F-35s, and direct a bunch of enemy fighters through a set of mountains to sneak up on the F-35s. And a visual range or even dog fight ensues. Then the F-35 would use a short range missile that can turn 90+ degrees and shoot behind itself . Which no other plane can do since all of the sensors are forward facing on all other planes.

But you're of course right, there is always eventually going to be a way of countering the stealth advantage, it's an arms race after all. Most likely it will be countered by some kind of cheap jamming drone swarming, which would make the F-35s sensors useless, and missiles too few, forcing the engagements to happen at shorter ranges.


------------------

What I mean by dog fighting is a one on one engagement where each plane is trying to furiously out maneuver the other. That is a rare occurrence. There is a WW2 era video that explains the tactics used that make the one on one style dog fighting obsolete. https://youtu.be/C_iW1T3yg80?t=530

The planes have a system where as soon as one plane is engage by an enemy, then your wingman, or a spare clean up squadron comes and mops it up, since the enemy makes it self an easy target when engaging a friendly.

It has seem a joke for an overly long time. When you can buy every homeless person in this country a $600k mansion for the money we've spent on this thing one has to wonder why are Forget buying a homeless person/family a big mansion, get them a permanent starter home (my part of Ohio, super nice new family homes are $150k, starter homes are well under $100k), job training, and voila, not only far less money spent then is spent on homeless shelters, but they are now trained workers, in a home, and we've still save far more than this program.

Wasn't the F-22 canceled because this was supposed to save us money? That and the inability to export it... which raises the question are we wanting to build the best aircraft for our defense or a plane that we can sell, because those are not super compatible. Yes the F-15 and F-16 are both aging designs, but this program so far doesn't seem to be the answer. Heck, the B-52 fleet is scary old and there doesn't seem to be any real replacements for it.

One of the supposed tasks of the F-35 is to provide a sensor rich environment for other aircraft to operate in, providing these other craft with sensor data, but this task seems best dealt with using drones. Why I question the use of drone strikes (at least as used now), a drone flying though the field providing rich sensor data for the follow up fighters and bombers seems to be a perfect role for drones.

At this point the program is probably only going on because we've spent so much on it that turning back will be seen as a bigger waste than going forward.

Watch the run-up to the bunny hop. The car dips down and stays "crouched" for a moment. I suspect it's triggered by the driver somehow, but I suppose it could just as easily be a byproduct of some sort of forward-looking sensor trying to clear the bar.