Flying cars, salt water engine and auto drive. New tech coming soon.

hawkwing43 · August 2015

Hey Now1

I found some nice tech coming out soon, it might not be back to the future stuff, but hey it still looks good to me.

Flying car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1VYLQeF7Bg

hawkwing43 · August 2015

Salt water car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrLyR5nmmb0

hawkwing43 · August 2015

Auto driving car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jW0fJ80VG8

jonsills · August 2015

Self-driving cars are currently on the road - they're still expensive and experimental, but Google's has driven quite a number of road miles and the only accidents it's been in have been the fault of the humans in other cars.

As for the "flying car" - we already have the ability to drive to an airport and then fly to another airport. It's called "private aircraft", and that's a mature technology. This thing's just a gimmick, and will remain so until VTOL capability is added. (Also, I'm a little suspicious about the blades on top - they weren't there, then they suddenly were. How much labor was hidden in that scene cut?)

rattler2 · August 2015

I don't think we'll ever totally give up on having controls for cars in cars, even the self driving ones. While the tech is interesting... the ability to take control in an emergency will most likely always be a factor. And I'd rather not trust something that much without an override if things go FUBAR.

starswordc · August 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

Hey Now1

I found some nice tech coming out soon, it might not be back to the future stuff, but hey it still looks good to me.

Flying car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1VYLQeF7Bg

Do you have a pilot's license and are you willing to take off and land your flying car at properly equipped airports?

Didn't think so.

Barring centralized traffic control, flying cars are never going to be anything more than one-off gimmicks for simple reasons of public safety. There's hundreds of thousands of traffic accidents every year. People suck at driving, myself included. And even though traffic fatalities have gone down since the '70s, that's mostly because cars have become more survivable so people aren't dying. Now how much worse do you think those numbers are going to get when you add a third dimension and a whole hell of a lot of other sensory inputs to consider? And bear in mind, the debris of a car crash stays on the ground. You have a crash in midair, it gets spread over a huge area.

In comparison, passenger airliners are statistically the safest form of travel by far, which is part of the reason the few accidents they do have draw more attention: they're novelties. Car accidents happen every day and kill tens of thousands of people a year. That's the other thing humans suck at: judging risk.

Flying car: Never. Going. To happen.

catstarsto · August 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw this!

mustrumridcully0 · August 2015

rattler2 wrote: »

I don't think we'll ever totally give up on having controls for cars in cars, even the self driving ones. While the tech is interesting... the ability to take control in an emergency will most likely always be a factor. And I'd rather not trust something that much without an override if things go FUBAR.

So far the experience with self-driving cars is that the technology is very safe. The only accidents the google self-driving cars were involved in where induced by humans.

Self-Driving cars will never get tired, bored or distracted. Their reflexes will not wane. They will never be driving drunk or on other drugs or medicaments. They will never be suicidal. They will never take anything personal, they won't speed for fun or perform risky manoeuvres for fun.
The car can be kept up to date with traffic reports to optimize its route while I listen to music, watch some TV, or sleep off, and when I arrive at the destination, I'm likely a lot more refreshed and relaxed then if I had to drive myself.

If the tech works - and it looks so far is if does - they will be a lot safer than a human driver.
Insurance companies will likely notice that, too, and offer reduced cost - or increase the cost of people not using self-driving cars.
Open question will be who will have responsibility if, despite all the safety procedures, a self-driving car gets into an accident. It could be that this will limit adaptation initially and it might force the car manufacturers themselves to accept that responsibility (as long as you're not overriding the car).

Sure, some things get lost in the process - There is so much as "Fahrvergnügen"... But I'd say most traffic is not about Fahrvergnügen, but getting from A to B.

k20vtec · August 2015

And how many Google cars are there? My bicycle have currently 0 accident too (except when I was still learning how to irde a bike). It is safer than a tank. But I dont deny the effectivness of automatic cars, specially on long road trips.
As for flying cars... If ppl are lazy enough to want their car do the driving, then I don't want them to be on the air at all, or on the road for that matter.
Just on the other day, I saw someone who have his hands NOT on the steering wheel, do you want that person to drive a flying car?
As a car enthusiats here, I do enjoy driving alot.

mustrumridcully0 · August 2015

k20vtec wrote: »

And how many Google cars are there?

A few. Apparently currently it's 23 Lexus SUVs.

Wikipedia has some information and lots of citations on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

In 2012, the test group of vehicles included six Toyota Prius, an Audi TT, and three Lexus RX450h,[14] each accompanied in the driver's seat by one of a dozen drivers with unblemished driving records and in the passenger seat by one of Google's engineers. By May 2015, that fleet consisted solely of 23 Lexus SUVs.[21]

Google's vehicles have traversed San Francisco's Lombard Street, famed for its steep hairpin turns, and through city traffic. The vehicles have driven over the Golden Gate Bridge and around Lake Tahoe.[3] The system drives at the speed limit it has stored on its maps and maintains its distance from other vehicles using its system of sensors.[22] The system provides an override that allows a human driver to take control of the car by stepping on the brake or turning the wheel, similar to cruise control systems already found in many cars today.[2][23]

On March 28, 2012, Google posted a YouTube video showing Steve Mahan, a resident of Morgan Hill, California, being taken on a ride in Google's self-driving Toyota Prius. In the video, Mahan states "Ninety-five percent of my vision is gone, I'm well past legally blind". In the description of the YouTube video, it is noted that the carefully programmed route takes him from his home to a drive-through restaurant, then to the dry cleaning shop, and finally back home.[24][25]

In August 2012, the team announced that they have completed over 300,000 autonomous-driving miles (500,000 km) accident-free, typically have about a dozen cars on the road at any given time, and are starting to test them with single drivers instead of in pairs.[26] Four U.S. states have passed laws permitting autonomous cars as of December 2013: Nevada, Florida, California, and Michigan.[27] A law proposed in Texas would establish criteria for allowing "autonomous motor vehicles".[28][29]

In April 2014, the team announced that their vehicles have now logged nearly 700,000 autonomous miles (1.1 million km).[30] In late May, Google revealed a new prototype of its driverless car, which had no steering wheel, gas pedal, or brake pedal, being 100% autonomous.[31]

In June 2015, the team announced that their vehicles have now driven over 1 million miles, stating that this was "the equivalent of 75 years of typical U.S. adult driving", and that in the process they had encountered 200,000 stop signs, 600,000 traffic lights, and 180 million other vehicles.[32] Google also announced its prototype vehicles were being road tested in Mountain View, California.[33] During testing, the prototypes' speed cannot exceed 25 mph and will have safety drivers aboard the entire time.

Accidents so far:

Traffic accidents

As of July 2015, Google's 23 self-driving cars have been involved in 14 minor traffic accidents on public roads,[21] but Google maintains that in all cases the vehicle itself was not at fault because the cars were either being manually driven or the driver of another vehicle was at fault.[34][35][36]

In June 2015, Google founder Sergey Brin confirmed that there had been 12 accidents as of that date, eight of which involved being rear-ended at a stop sign or traffic light, two in which the vehicle was side-swiped by another driver, one of which involved another driver rolling through a stop sign, and one where a Google employee was manually driving the car.[37]

In July 2015, three Google employees suffered minor injuries when the self-driving car they were riding in was rear-ended by a car whose driver failed to brake at a traffic light. This was the first time that a self-driving car collision resulted in injuries.[38]

k20vtec · August 2015

Wow, 23. I thought it was even more....Wait, it is completely blamed on the other guy? Man a friend of mine had to bite it when there was an accident. The parties involved weren't in unison about Whos fault is it

mustrumridcully0 · August 2015

k20vtec wrote: »

Wow, 23. I thought it was even more....Wait, it is completely blamed on the other guy? Man a friend of mine had to bite it when there was an accident. The parties involved weren't in unison about Whos fault is it

Well, and in the process they have driven a million miles, a life time of driving. At least for a regular guy - a truck driver will probably drive a lot more.

angrytarg · August 2015

No matter how safe the case study suggests self-driving cars are, I will never trust them. And yes, I cannot be convinced. The case with the running stop sign is interesting - being a driver means to deal with other people's shortcomings. I don't know the circumstances, but if the car collides with someone because "it was right" it's not much better, really. A human driver could have maybe evaded a crash in the last second, who knows. People fail, technology fails. If a driver fails and hits me, he or she is able of compassion and help me. If the machine fails it runs me straight over and goes on. Technology can make live easier and safer but the final decision always has to be made by a human being - no matter that they can fail or be TRIBBLE. It's just the way we are and what we have to deal with.

jonsills · August 2015

angrytarg wrote: »

No matter how safe the case study suggests self-driving cars are, I will never trust them. And yes, I cannot be convinced. The case with the running stop sign is interesting - being a driver means to deal with other people's shortcomings. I don't know the circumstances, but if the car collides with someone because "it was right" it's not much better, really. A human driver could have maybe evaded a crash in the last second, who knows.

Nope, humans don't do any better - most of us wind up being distracted by speaking with a passenger, or by a cell phone, or by changing stations on the radio (when you have XM and hundreds of stations to choose from, it's not always practical to change the station without looking, which is why I wind up listening to just one station most of the time), or by something we're angry about that's totally unrelated to the incident at hand - which is also why humans run stop signs. Had both of the vehicles been automated, the incident would never have happened, because the autocar would have stopped - they can't get distracted or angry or anything.

Now, if you're just afraid of the technology, well, that's up to you.

starswordc · August 2015

jonsills wrote: »

angrytarg wrote: »

No matter how safe the case study suggests self-driving cars are, I will never trust them. And yes, I cannot be convinced. The case with the running stop sign is interesting - being a driver means to deal with other people's shortcomings. I don't know the circumstances, but if the car collides with someone because "it was right" it's not much better, really. A human driver could have maybe evaded a crash in the last second, who knows.

Nope, humans don't do any better - most of us wind up being distracted by speaking with a passenger, or by a cell phone, or by changing stations on the radio (when you have XM and hundreds of stations to choose from, it's not always practical to change the station without looking, which is why I wind up listening to just one station most of the time), or by something we're angry about that's totally unrelated to the incident at hand - which is also why humans run stop signs. Had both of the vehicles been automated, the incident would never have happened, because the autocar would have stopped - they can't get distracted or angry or anything.

Now, if you're just afraid of the technology, well, that's up to you.

Which is exactly why flying cars will never happen.

angrytarg · August 2015

jonsills wrote: »

Nope, humans don't do any better - most of us wind up being distracted by speaking with a passenger, or by a cell phone, or by changing stations on the radio (when you have XM and hundreds of stations to choose from, it's not always practical to change the station without looking, which is why I wind up listening to just one station most of the time), or by something we're angry about that's totally unrelated to the incident at hand - which is also why humans run stop signs. Had both of the vehicles been automated, the incident would never have happened, because the autocar would have stopped - they can't get distracted or angry or anything.

Now, if you're just afraid of the technology, well, that's up to you.

With that reasoning we should just replace people with robots. The world would be a better place

mustrumridcully0 · August 2015

starswordc wrote: »

jonsills wrote: »

angrytarg wrote: »

No matter how safe the case study suggests self-driving cars are, I will never trust them. And yes, I cannot be convinced. The case with the running stop sign is interesting - being a driver means to deal with other people's shortcomings. I don't know the circumstances, but if the car collides with someone because "it was right" it's not much better, really. A human driver could have maybe evaded a crash in the last second, who knows.

Nope, humans don't do any better - most of us wind up being distracted by speaking with a passenger, or by a cell phone, or by changing stations on the radio (when you have XM and hundreds of stations to choose from, it's not always practical to change the station without looking, which is why I wind up listening to just one station most of the time), or by something we're angry about that's totally unrelated to the incident at hand - which is also why humans run stop signs. Had both of the vehicles been automated, the incident would never have happened, because the autocar would have stopped - they can't get distracted or angry or anything.

Now, if you're just afraid of the technology, well, that's up to you.

Which is exactly why flying cars will never happen.

Unless automated, perhaps. In that regard, we are even further than on ground.

But I think flying cars are also an economical and ecological problem. It seems likely it will consume more fuel and require more maintenance. The fuel and maintenance will increase the cost, and the fuel is also an ecological problem.

captainchaos66 · August 2015

My biggest issue with a computer driving a car is this: We will be entrusting our lives to the people who programmed and coded the car. How can we know with absolute certainty that there wont be built in bugs, backdoors, or some way for " big brother" to take control of the car and A ) Crash it purposely B ) Drive it to a police station or another spot for " Big Brother" to do bad things to you. Sure it seems completely outlandish to consider this, but it still has to be considered.
Also,, in a crash situation, the Cars computer will have to decide the best course of action in a nanosecond.
Option A ) crash into a Jersey barrier and likely get critically hurt or die
Option B ) Crash into a school bus full of kids.

A person could possibly find some 3rd option that a computer cant because its not programmed too. Although it will only be a few years until this technology hits mainstream, meaning other than the fancy cars normal people cant afford, however it will be a long, long, lonnnnnnnnnnng time before you will see me riding in one of these contraptions.

That " Salt water powered" car? That actually old technology that being refined to become more mainstream. Its a Fuel cell powered electric car. The part about the " salt water" is interesting, but not sure it would be reliable in the long term simply because Salt is very bad for electronics, and salt water doesn't have the same energy potential as fresh water ( PLEASE don't bite my head off if I'm wrong on that, I'm going by what I remember from high school)

All this technology is definitely exciting. Keep in mind that Windows cant make a computer OS that last more than 2 years without getting glitches, and android cant make a phone OS that lasts more than a year without something TRIBBLE up on it. So does that mean that cars will become as throwaway as computer and phones?

starswordc · August 2015

captainchaos66 wrote: »

My biggest issue with a computer driving a car is this: We will be entrusting our lives to the people who programmed and coded the car. How can we know with absolute certainty that there wont be built in bugs, backdoors, or some way for " big brother" to take control of the car and A ) Crash it purposely B ) Drive it to a police station or another spot for " Big Brother" to do bad things to you. Sure it seems completely outlandish to consider this, but it still has to be considered.

That's already a problem with non-self-driving cars.

captainchaos66 wrote: »

Also,, in a crash situation, the Cars computer will have to decide the best course of action in a nanosecond.
Option A ) crash into a Jersey barrier and likely get critically hurt or die
Option B ) Crash into a school bus full of kids.

A person could possibly find some 3rd option that a computer cant because its not programmed too. Although it will only be a few years until this technology hits mainstream, meaning other than the fancy cars normal people cant afford, however it will be a long, long, lonnnnnnnnnnng time before you will see me riding in one of these contraptions.

Option C: Use the brakes and stop. That's already being done in computer-controlled but non-self-driving cars.

If you're that paranoid, I advise you to stick to pre-1980 vehicles. But then you'll be sacrificing a lot of new safety features that make current cars much more survivable, not to mention you'll be spending a lot more money on gasoline.

hawkwing43 · August 2015

Guys I hear you on the flying cars, we might not ever see ones like from back to the Future, but we will see the ones like from that 1st video. And even this one too. Another coming soon flying car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yn2uyQJ1jc

k20vtec · September 2015

Well I could think of several attractive 80s car that I would want. Skyline R32, high rev Hondas, Supra MK.III, 205GTI, VW GTI, Buick GNX, Camaro (not exactly the best one, but I just have a soft spot for those sharp lines) etc, for the same reason the Countach too. Dat big rear wheel.

Not I don't appreciate modern cars though.

autumnwind34 · September 2015

Aren't the self driving cars kind of stupid and cause accidents. IE trying to merge into 70 mile an hour traffic at 30mph and getting side swiped from behind by a driver unprepared for someone merging so slowly or stopping in an intersection with a green light and then getting rear ended. I get that in both of these instances the accident was technically the other human drivers fault, but still I feel had a human been in control these accidents would have been avoided. Unless they find a way to make all cars on the road automatically driven, similar to in IROBOT where manual control(at hight speed) was illegal or make these car more intuitive and behave more like human drivers, I don't see it happening.

Sea water powered car. First off, the rear end of that thing is uglier than a Gorns butt. Secondly, maybe it is just me but I hate how these hydrogen fuel cell cars(and this thing) Use hydrogen to power a generator which then sends power to an electric motor, in some cases up to 4 electric motors(one at each wheel). Just seems like there is too much going on and too much that could potentially go wrong. I also hate that they are silent, taking away the roar of the engine and manual transmissions take away like 70% of the driving experience.

Is it really completely implausable to create a hydrogen combustion engine where you just spray hydrogen into pistons via fuel injectors or a carburetor? Just give it forged internals to deal with the extra pressure from hydrogen instead of gasoline. I'm not an engineer but it seems within the realm of possibility to me and much simpler than the way they are doing it

jonsills · September 2015

Autumn, the accidents that happened to the Google cars were not what you cite - had they been, for starters, the Google car would have been found at fault during the investigations. Rather, the cars were following the standard rules of the road, and the humans in the other cars were not.

And yes, your "hydrogen internal combustion engine" is highly implausible. You underestimate the volatility of hydrogen - used in the fashion you describe, the "roar of the engine" would be the roar of the engine exploding. And "too much that could go wrong"? That's practically a capsule description of internal combustion - a process of driving an engine through a series of small explosions (because air and gasoline, while explosive, aren't nearly as dangerous as hydrogen). Your complaints come across as quaint, like those who bemoaned the horseless carriages that robbed us of the gentle clop-clop of hooves, or the streamlined diesel trains that lost the classic "chuff-chuff-chuff" of the old steam engines.

autumnwind34 · September 2015

@jonsills
Given the idea of a hydrogen engine. You might be right as I said I'm not an engineer, it just seems like they are trying to reinvent the wheel to me.

As for the accidents I disagree the accident stopped at the green light is the very first result if you search "self driven car accidents". Furthermore the self driven cars are involved in an accident on average once every 66k thousands miles. Regardless of whether or not all of these accidents really were the other drivers fault it is oddly disporportionate to human drivers who, on average, have an accident once every 156k miles, but who knows maybe these google cars just happen to be 2.5X more unluckly than humans

lilchibiclari · September 2015

To elaborate a bit on the mechanics of hydrogen internal combustion engines, hydrogen burns hotter than gasoline--much hotter--while kerosene burns yellow-hot and propane burns blue-hot, hydrogen burns ultraviolet-hot. This is significantly higher than the melting point of steel-based alloys.

While from a thermodynamic efficiency perspective this sounds like a good thing, the problem is that it burns so hot that we are forced to build the cylinders and pistons out of some sort of tungsten-based material, which is vastly more expensive than steel alloys.

But rocket engines can burn hydrogen with no problem, right? Why can't we use similar materials to construct our hydrogen automobile engines? Aside from money considerations, rocket engines which burn hydrogen only need to operate for ten or twenty minutes between inspections. By comparison, a consumer automobile engine would need to tolerate up to half a year between inspections.

Okay, you say, let's lower the cylinder temperature by burning a smaller amount of hydrogen. Doesn't work--to lower the temperature enough, you have to run so lean that the mixture is on the edge of failing to ignite reliably when the engine idles. Likewise, if we were to increase the active cooling of the cylinders with say, a pumped water jacket surrounding each one, we'd still have to massively enlarge the car's main radiator in order to dump the 2-3 times as much heat that it will have to handle compared to a gasoline engine. . . and you'll have lost most of the extra efficiency gains that the hydrogen would have brought you in the first place.

k20vtec · September 2015

ppl, BMW and Mazda already have hydrogen burning cars prototypes, the Hydrogen 7 and RX-8 hydrogen respectivly. As for efficiency... Well, worse MPG, and less power. Believe it is 1/3 of petrol versions.

Flying cars, salt water engine and auto drive. New tech coming soon.

Comments