Suggestion: The EM Drive Is Getting The Appropriate Level Of Attention From The Science Community

There have been many news stories saying that the EM Drive will solve almost all problems in interplanetary travel, permit low cost flying cars and who knows what else. Other stories say that it is flat out impossible and we shouldn't spend a single publicly funded research dollar on it. But I haven't seen a single article with the rather boring suggestion that perhaps in this case the research community has got it exactly right. That it's not a perpetual motion machine, doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand. But it's far too soon to justify huge research programs into it, even if it is a real effect. We just have to be patient and see how the experiment develops. So, here is a news story to say - that. In detail:

There has been a lot of publicity for the original news stories. Headlines such as 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours. And a lot stories debunking it, headlines such as  How to fool the world with bad science — Starts With A Bang!

But after the news stories with sometimes well known scientists debunking the experiments, you get a final wave of news stories debunking the debunkers . I think it is worth looking at these also, they deserve more publicity than they got. 

The early debunkers of the original stories made several quite serious errors of understanding of what the claims were and how the experiments were conducted, in their eagerness to debunk them. And these errors have been repeated over and over in the social media by people who share the news stories and quote the opinions of the debunking scientists.

First, the scientists who are doing the research are not responsible for all this media hype. 

Some of the original inventors make very bold claims. According to Robert Shawyer, inventor of the EM Drive, it will solve many of the world's problems even.

Other experimenters though are just exploring it in an open ended way as an anomaly that needs to be investigated via the scientific method.

The critics often go the other way, going overboard by debunking things that the experimenters don't claim, or misunderstanding the methods of the experiments. 

I'd like to highlight a couple of these misunderstandings that have been repeated over and over - such as the misunderstanding about what they meant by a "null" experiment - and also some of the common objections.  such as the idea that it has to violate conservation of energy or momentum and the objections based on delayed response.

This was one of the most publicized "mistakes" highlighted in articles like: How to fool the world with bad science — Starts With A Bang! and Page on discovermagazine.com which are shared over and over in social media discussions on this story.

Quoting from the abstract:

"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."

On a first read you might think - well - why read any further - they have already said that it doesn't work? What is all the fuss about?

However, if you read the abstract and the paper carefully, it is clear that the  Null version wasn't a null test for the EM drive itself. It was a null test for a version without grooves, to test one of the inventors' claims that certain grooves put into the chamber were necessary. 

The experiment showed that not only were these grooves not necessary, they didn't make any difference to the amount of the effect. 

So it was a "null version" for the grooves claim, not for the basic drive hypothesis that RF waves bouncing inside an asymmetrical cavity can generate thrust. Both versions generated roughly the same measurable effect in the experiment, of apparently a very small amount of thrust.

The true "null" version was when they tried an RF load with no apparatus - and this, they report, generated no apparent thrust. 

All this is reported in the paper they link to. If you read the abstract only NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) then you might come to the same conclusion as many of the debunkers, but read it and then read the article, and then you will find that the null experiment was just for the grooves claim, and the asymmetrical chamber hypothesis was tested separately and the asymmetrical chamber is what the experimenters say did have an effect in their experiments.

 - so the authors were just rather sloppy in the way they read the abstract and the paper. This tends to dent ones confidence in the debunkers, rather than in the original experimenters. If the debunkers could misunderstand such a basic point, that is made clear in the paper in a way that is hard to see how it could be read any other way - how much else have they misunderstood?

The authors of the paper also could have worded their abstract more carefully perhaps. But if  you've ever tried to write an abstract, you may know how hard it is to summarize your work in just a few sentences.

This also is often quoted and shared:

"CalTech physicist Sean Carroll, who we've spoken to previously about the feasibility of an EMDrive, echoes Davis' sentiments.

"My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time," Carroll tells io9. "Right there in the abstract this paper says, 'Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive', so I'm not sure what the news is. I'm going to spend my time thinking about ideas that don't violate conservation of momentum."

No, German Scientists Have Not Confirmed the "Impossible" EMDrive

However, if you read the conference paper carefully, it says clearly that it hasn't confirmed the drive, even in the abstract, just as he says.

Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects

That shows that the authors of a lot of the newspaper reports didn't read the paper carefully. It's not the fault of its authors though that they were reported as confirming the EM drive when the abstract says nothing of the sort.

They make it clear that it is work in progress. 

The paper says that according to their measurements it behaved as expected in a vacuum - but they still have things to check by way of alternative explanations.  

On the other hand though, it doesn't say that they have found an alternative explanation yet. 

No way can this paper be taken as disproving the drive. It neither confirms nor disproves it. It's work in progress reporting some interesting interim results for other experimenters, and themselves, to follow up further to find out what the significance is, if anything. That's how science normally works.

Much also was made of the delayed onset of the effect and that it continued after the power was switched off. This seems to suggest it was caused by heat.

But - if you read the paper carefully again - you'll see that the experimenters looked carefully at the possibility of a thermal explanation. Doing things such as insulating the chamber so the external temperature increase was reduced to only 4C (had no effect on the amount of horizontal thrust). And they did spot thermal effects. But these operated vertically, which is what they expected, and so could be disentangled from the thrust effect which was horizontal.

And a delayed effect might be exactly what you'd expect if, for instance, the chamber was being "charged up" - like an increase in electric charge, or a pressure differential, or whatever it was. That's just an analogy there. If the thrust had turne d on and off instantly, I think we might well have got sceptics saying that this instant turn on / off was a clear sign that, for instance, it was some issue in the electrical wiring and magnetism rather than a real effect.

So I don't think we should conclude that because of delayed onset, that it is not a real effect.

Also many say it is impossible because of conservation of energy or momentum. But new unexplained physics is very likely to appear to violate these laws. For instance if you didn't know about gravity, hadn't taken account of it in your physics, then whenever you drop something - that violates both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. The object accelerates to the ground and then hits it, releasing energy. And does that without either apparently any energy supplied to it, or any momentum exchange.

Now we explain that in our physics by saying that there is a potential field and that it originally has potential energy. I.e. we add in a number that tells us how much energy it has. And when it drops, this number is reduced and converted to kinetic energy. (Let's stick to the simpler Newtonian mechanics approximation here rather than bring in the complexities of General Relativity, it's just for purposes of illustration).

And as for the momentum exchange, we say tha t when it accelerates towards the Earth, that the entire Earth also accelerates by a small amount towards the falling object - though there is no practical possibility of ever measuring this momentum change of the Earth itself. We just assume that it has to do this, by extrapolation from smaller scale experiments.

And - sometimes physicists do observe apparent violations of these laws. For instance in the process of beta decay, then there is an apparent violation of both these laws. This was explained by the hypothesis of a neutrino. Pauli proposed this in a letter in 1930 (though here he calls it a "neutron" - the particle now called a neutron wasn't discovered until a few years later):

Dear radioactive ladies and gentlemen,

As the bearer of these lines [...] will explain more exactly, considering the 'false' statistics of N-14and Li-6 nuclei, as well as the continuous β-spectrum, I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save the "exchange theorem" of statistics and the energy theorem. Namely [there is] the possibility that there could exist in the nuclei electrically neutral particles that I wish to call neutrons,[nb 2] which have spin 1/2 and obey the exclusion principle, and additionally differ from light quanta in that they do not travel with the velocity of light: The mass of the neutron must be of the same order of magnitude as the electron mass and, in any case, not larger than 0.01 proton mass. The continuous β-spectrum would then become understandable by the assumption that in β decay a neutron is emitted together with the electron, in such a way that the sum of the energies of neutron and electron is constant.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Electron_neutrino#Pauli.27s_letter

The neutrino itself was not discovered until much later, in the form of the antineutrino in the 1950s, and it was a long time before the lower energy neutrinos from the sun were discovered (in the 1960s).

Though it is easy to create neutrinos, they interact only weakly with matter and a single neutrino can easily pass through the entire Earth without interacting with any matter. So they can only be detected in very large numbers. And they can carry away momentum, and they can lead to apparent violations of conservation of energy.

Which doesn't mean that the EM drive has to create neutrinos. But there could be many other particles that are even more weakly interacting than neutrinos. Or other effects that we don't understand yet that can carry away momentum and balance up the energy equations.A

The one thing that is impossible is a perpetual motion machine. If you find a system that returns to its original state precisely, with a net output of energy - then there is no way to make that consistent with conservation of energy or momentum. That's because any numbers you attach to assign "potential energy" to the system will be the same at the beginning and the end of the experiment, so you there is no way to do that to make the numbers add up.

But that's not the situation here. There's a net input of power leading to the thrust, so you don't have the same state at the beginning and end of the experiment, so it is not a perpetual motion machine.

Irrespective of any arguments about conservation of energy or momentum you need to start with the data first. Whatever you see, you need to describe it and understand it. You can't dismiss data just because it doesn't fit your scientific pre-conceptions.

Isaac Asimov has a fun story about that, a physicist who wakes up one day to find that he can levitate. And he can't find any explanation of what is happening, and has a lot of problems trying to get anyone to investigate it because he is the only person able to levitate. 

Why is it that this never happens in real life? Could it? If not, why not? Physics can't answer questions like that.

Which doesn't mean this EM drive is a violation of these laws. It may conserve mometum by new particles - or by turning the ideas of a "virtual plasma" in some way into something acceptable as new physics. Or in some other way not thought of yet.

But - what if we did find something that seemed to violate these laws? Well - you st ill have to investigate that also, as good scientists. It's not scientific to be like the characters in Asimov's story and refuse to look at the experimental data because it doesn't fit your views about how science "should" work. Experimental data always comes first in science.

In a normal spacecraft - most of the energy goes into the exhaust, not into moving the spacecraft, if it has high velocity exhaust. 

For instance, an artificial scenario, to use as a thought experiment - suppose you have a friend who keeps pace with you in another spacecraft who will hand over whatever exhaust mass you need whenever you need it, but won't supply you with extra energy to fire it?

Then it would make much more sense to fire 1 kg at 1 meter per second than 1 mg at 1000 meters per second. Both give your spacecraft the same delta v, but the 1 mg requires a thousand times as much energy to fire it for the same delta v. (Energy required is half the mass times the velocity squared).

It would make even more sense to fire one ton at a thousandth of a meter per second, which would require a thousandth of the amount of energy needed for one kilogram at one meter per second. 

So in this artificial situation, with limited energy, and with unlimited exhaust mas s available from a friend like that, you'd take on board as much fuel as they can supply you, and fire it at the lowest exhaust velocities you can to achieve the desired thrust, and the energy requirements would then be very small.

So an ion thruster would make no sense at all if the exhaust mass was unlimited. 

But because you have potentially huge amounts of energy via e = mc^2, and because of the impossibility of carrying enough fuel to fire it at low exhaust velocity, it makes sense for an ion thruster to fire small amounts at high velocity even though it is a much more inefficient way of propelling a spacecraft.

 So the big question would seem to be, where does the mass come from for the momentum change?  If it comes from conversion of energy to mass, then - it's really not that much different from an ion thruster in how it works. 

You have your RTG, it supplies energy to your "reactionless drive" by converting mass to energy, and your thruster then converts some of that energy back to mass, and the rest it uses to accelerate that mass. And so you would be using mass, but indirectly, using some of the mass of the RTG as it decays. 

If you use solar power then similarly, you are using the incoming solar photons as energy (which were originally the result of a mass to energy conversion in the sun), then converting some of them back to mass, and then using that mass for propulsion. In that case it isn't depleting any mass from your spacecraft - and it would work better than a photon thruster so long as the particles created by this energy to mass conversion are propelled at relatively low exhaust velocities.

Both of these might be an efficient way of exploring the solar s ystem, It's not violating any laws of physics. It seems a kind of roundabout way of doing things, why not just accelerate fuel that you take with you like the ion thruster does? It might not have quite the savings they expect when you take that into account, but still might be worth doing.

It might be more efficient than solar sailing, when using energy from the sun, because the energy to mass conversion lets you fire the reaction mass away at a much lower relative velocity.

On the other hand if you are picking up the mass somehow from your surroundings as you travel - well - that's like the friend supplying you with mass as the travel alongside you - there would need to be a lot more explanation, and more gaps to fill, to explain how you manage to get mass supplied to you that's traveling at the same speed as you. 

The easiest way to understand this - without bringing in problematical ideas of a virtual plasma - might be that the mass actually isn't moving at the same speed as your spacecraft.

There might then be some energy loss needed to bring this mass up to the speed of your spacecraft before you fire it out as exhaust - nevertheless it might be worth doing, just as for a Bussard ram jet 

So - maybe the "vacuum state" actually has an inertia, and it is actually some kind of a plasma which is,say, at rest relative to the Big Bang for instance. That doesn't violate any laws of physics because we already have a "preferred rest frame" lo cally which you can determine by finding out whether or not you are accelerating relative to the three degree background. If the "vacuum state" in some way gets locked into a particular structure in the big bang and then just spreads out, it might have a preferred rest frame in that sense perhaps. Of course very much hand waving here, it's going to be new physics after all.

So then the efficiency of the motor would depend on how fast you are traveling relative to the three degree background radiation. That would be sort of like using the three degree background radiation itself as fuel. 

Or might be that it is using some other component that is distributed in space that we don't know about. Maybe picking up and accelerating WIMP like particles from what seems to be a vacuum for instance. 

It might be stationary relative to our galaxy for instance - or orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same speed of the sun - or stationary relative to the sun  or even orbi ting the sun at the same speed as the planets, could be many possibilities there.

So with either of those ideas, you'd expect then that there would be some penalty there as you travel faster and faster relative to the source "material" whatever it is. And if you happen to be at rest relative to it, then you could pick up and accelerate as much mass as you like with almost no penalty.

You might notice that experimentally, perhaps, if the drive works just a bit better depending on your velocity relative to the three degree background, or any of these other potential sources - which might vary depending on the time of year, and time of day also for that matter.Here I'm not at all attempting to give an alternative theory for the drive. It is just to show by way of examples that it doesn't immediately and obviously have to violate conservation of energy and momentum. 

The idea that it might involve some kind of weakly interacting unknown new particle is not my own idea . It is one of the suggestions made in the Eagleworks talk, which also surveyed and touched on some other more outlandish ideas for how it might work without violating the conservation laws, such as that it might involve a low level of warping of space time (which would result in propulsion without any momentum exchange at all, like the Alcuberre drive).

In all of this, I think the chance that the drive actually does work is low, and expect that ,like the faster than light neutrinos, that they will find an alternative explanation eventually.

But it's been my experience so far that the writings of the debunkers of this experiment are often of a low quality scientifically as I just outlined above. 

This is not too surprising as these are scientists who are not at all expert in this topic area  and scientists are only human and often make embarrassing mistakes when they make statements outside their main areas of expertise. 

And the mistakes were subtle ones. Such as the misunderstanding about the nature of the "null" device. I'm not at all sure I'd have spotted them myself, I found them as a result of reading some of the spate of less publicized news stories debunking the debunkers that were published immediately after the debunking stories.

So - I sympathize with the ex perimenters. They don't deserve to be debunked in this harsh way by people who haven't taken the time to properly familiarize themselves with what they are doing.

Though it is also natural for the debunkers to want to debunk something that seems to violate the basic laws of physics. It's not often you encounter something that seems to violate conservation of momentum as a physicist, and when you do it is usually an error - and it's only rare that observations of apparent violations lead to new physics.

Which doesn't mean I think that the EM drive is real. I've no idea.

But I think it is intriguing enough to follow up until we either find that explanation - or in the more surprising and interesting case - confirm it.

And - as so often happens with things like this, I expect that they will find that it is experimental error. For no other reason than because that's what usually happens with these things. But every now and again out of all these tests and experim ents, then you get one or two that end up revolutionizing science. And you wouldn't get those revolutions in science if it weren't for the tenacious experimenters that keep working at their experiments even when everyone else tells them to stop. 

If they do find that it is experimental error - well - that's a forward step in science also, to find a source of an error that is at present so baffling that nobody has yet been able to explain it.

Even if it turns out to be a real effect, then without knowing how it works, then it's impossible for anyone to say for sure what the implications will be. Robert Shawyer has said he will soon create new versions of the device able to generate thrusts of order of newtons, not just micronewtons and has made many optimistic predictions. If he succeeds then it would have many benefits probably.

But - just based on the history of dramatic scientific breakthrough announcements by inventors, and dramatic new science results - with no disprespect intended to him - it could as easily turn out to be results of experimental error like the faster than light neutrinos. Or it could be a small scale effect, perhaps based on known physics, that never gets turned into a useful device. Or it may be in between the two, and result in a device that is sometimes useful in particular circumstances, like an ion thruster. Or in the more interesting case where it involves new physics, or new princip les, it could be indirect evidence for something interesting, but still not result in a new space drive or hover cars.

So, yes, I do think that the experiments are being unfairly downplayed by a few scientists and journalists. Also unfairly overplayed by others :).

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are being downplayed by the scientific community as a whole however. Scientists are investigating it carefully as the recent German experiments show. I think they are giving it an appropriate level of attention.

At the same time both the experiments and the debunkers are being way overhyped by the media. And in a situation like this, emotions run high, and some of the scientists who get involved, who are usually not experts in this topic area and not the same scientists who are tasked with doing the experiments or reviewing them - being only human, are liable to make many mistakes in their eagerness to either support or debunk the experiments.

But it's not going to be settled in this way through internet discussions in various forums, and social media or through dramatic news stories . We will only find the answer by continuing this process of careful experimentation. And unlike the examples of the likes of Spock in movies - in the real world scientific progress is often a gradual and slow process. The rest of us will just have to be patient and see what happens. 

This article originates in my answer to a quora question: Is the significance and/or creditability of the Eagleworks EM Drive hard vacuum tests being unfairly downplayed by the scientific community?

See also the earlier quora question: How does the EmDrive warp space?

And this Reddit discussion from last year which gives good background data on the two drive ideas (there are actually two different suggested drives, the EM drive and the Cannae Drive, that are similar in design): The FACTS as we currently know them about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive • /r/Futurology

Source: Suggestion: The EM Drive Is Getting The Appropriate Level Of Attention From The Science Community

Flying Cars Will Be Here In A Few Years

Flying Cars Will Be Here In A Few Years GeneralIndustry 15 hours ago by Ahmed Bilal Tweet   Pros Cons Presentation  Performance  Usability  Features  Value 

In the past century humans conquered the art of space flight but one thing that still remains beyond comprehension is a flying car. Many have tried and tested failure met them at one point or the other one company still seems adamant to build us a magnificent car that can fly around. Many people have been patiently waiting for flying cars for many years now but due to certain complications it seemed before that many of us would not be alive to see these flying cars. All is about to change because an American company Terrafugia has launched a new design of its heli-car hybrid TF-X model which is just terrific.

Flying cars will be accessible to everyone in the near future

The company released a new exterior design for the TF-X which has been around since 2013 but we are yet to see it around. This flying car does not need any kind of a runway to takeoff and land, it has a cruising speed of approximately 322km/h (200 mph) with an 805 kms (500 miles) flight range. The TF-X can recharge its battery either from its engine or from recharging stations, and has a capacity to carry four passengers. The car is a hybrid as announced in 2013 and it is yet to get off the ground, but it seems that all will change as the company announced that a one-tenth scale test model of the car will soon undergo testing in the MIT Wright Brothers wind tunnel.

They exclaimed "The wind tunnel test model will be used to measure drag, lift and thrust forces while simulating hovering flight, transitioning to forward flight and full forward flight,"

Advertisements

The TF-X model looks like a small helicopter; it has two wings with twin motor pods which can be unfolded in case you are in a flying mood, the car will be lifted up using 1 megawatt of power. The wings look like twin propellers which can be folded and unfolded at will (folded wings will make the car easily storable in a normal sized garage). It is explained on the website of Terrafugia that before driving one can select the actual landing zone and then another two backup landing zones in the event of an emergency where sufficient energy is not available. The driver doesn't need to worry about getting lost while in the air because everything will be computer operated with hi tech systems.

"Operating a TF-X vehicle should be statistically safer than driving a modern automobile," they claim.

If everything goes according to plan and all tests are cleared then Terrafugia believes that the TF-X will take 8 to 12 years for development. I know it is a long time but it is worth the wait, this is the dream toy of many grownups just like me. So be patient!

Image source 1 and 2

Share on TwitterShare on Facebook Get Latest Tech News Daily

Delivered by FeedBurner

We cater to your constant need to remain up to date on today's technology. Like us, tweet to us or +1 us, to keep up with our round the clock updates, reviews, guides and more.

Twitter Facebook
Source: Flying Cars Will Be Here In A Few Years

Flying car to be sold in UK within six years - but it will cost you £200,000

The prospect of Jetsons-style flying cars in our skies moved a step closer with the announcement by Terrafugia that its new TF-X four-seater, unveiled in 2013, could go on sale by as early as 2021.

Terrafugia's earlier Transition car-plane made a successful maiden flight in 2012. Powered by a 99bhp Rotax aircraft engine, it had a cruising speed of 100mph and a claimed 35mpg on the road.

By contrast, the TF-X features a plug-in hybrid powertrain which powers the wheels in car mode and two electrically-driven rotors in flight. No runway is needed as it can take off and land vertically. Claimed air range is 500 miles, 90 more than that of the Transition.

The makers also say that the TF-X can autonomously avoid other air traffic, bad weather and restricted air space and find its own way to a pre-specified landing zone, although the driver must approve the final landing. There are manual controls and overrides and a full-vehicle parachute system.

Terrafugia quotes five hours for learning to drive the TF-X, which fits into a standard single-car garage, and says that its final design "should be statistically safer than driving a modern automobile".

Pricing will be set to compete against luxury cars. The Transition currently costs $279,000 (about £180,000), so expect a starting price of over £200,000 for the TF-X.

Source: Flying car to be sold in UK within six years - but it will cost you £200,000

8 FUNDAMENTAL WAYS DRIVERLESS CARS MIGHT CHANGE OUR SOCIETY

Until relatively recently, the idea of society abandoning cars that people have to control themselves in favor of driverless vehicles seemed like something out of a science fiction movie. Sure, we've been promised Jetson-style flying cars since at least the 1950s, and that hasn't happened yet, but the idea of hopping into a vehicle and just relaxing with a book (Just kidding! "Books" will probably also be phased out in favor of electronic reading devices) while the car drives itself to our destination didn't seem likely either.

The technology is being developed and tested in real world applications though, and it seems reasonable to expect widespread use of driverless vehicles to become the norm over the next few decades. What kind of effects on our society might that transition create? Let's take a look at a few possibilities.

8. Fewer People Will Choose To Own Cars.Many projections on how driverless cars will effect our habits seem to indicate that fewer people will actually buy one, and will instead use them in similar ways to how we currently use taxi services. Its likely that driverless cars will be expensive, especially at first, before they completely replace manually driven vehicles. What is probable in such a scenario is that people will use them on an "as needed" basis, perhaps using the Internet to order one to pick them up wherever they are, and being charged by the mile. There may be services that provide driverless transportation in such a manner, allowing for charges dependent on a person's needs - charging less if a person chooses to share their lift with another customer, for instance. It's not out of the question that such services will be preferred over ownership by many, providing a less expensive way to get around without many of the disadvantages of currently available mass transit options. Far fewer young people are choosing to learn how to drive now, anyway, and it's possible that the idea of car ownership could dramatically change with the introduction of driverless technology. This would also dramatically effect mass transit and taxi services, probably killing the latter entirely.

7. Traffic Accidents Will Largely Disappear.Traveling by automobile is one of the most dangerous things most of us do routinely. Auto accidents are currently one of the leading causes of injury and death in this country, and in most cases the causes of an accident are a distracted or impaired driver. While the current driverless technology being tested still requires someone who can pilot the vehicle in case of certain problems arising, eventually that may not be the case, and future vehicles may offer an entirely driverless experience. Had too many drinks? Calling up a driverless car will eliminate the danger of drunk driving, and will also allow people to text away without being irresponsible creeps. Will such a system ever be so perfect that auto accidents are completely eliminated? Probably not, but they will be dramatically reduced, especially those caused by drunk driving, distracted drivers, road rage, or other dangerous driver behaviors. Because of this, one effect of driv erless cars will be...

6. Owning An Old Fashioned Car Will Become A Lot More Expensive.Driving conventional cars will probably eventually be phased out almost entirely, and become an expensive hobby reserved for parades. Why?

Insurance costs will soar for those who want to keep driving older vehicles.

When traffic accidents are decreased by widespread use of driverless cars, all communicating with each other and adjusting to changing traffic conditions faster than a human can, cars driven by people are going to become the obvious dangerous variable on public roads. Insurance companies will respond to that by dramatically raising insurance premiums on cars that are driven by people. Eventually, those rising costs will lead many people to abandon driving old fashioned cars. The government may make the choice more compelling by imposing stricter (and more expensive) safety restrictions for allowing conventional vehicles to share the road with driverless ones. It might be decades before this happens, but it is probably just a matter of time. It will also lead to...

5. Car Culture Will Either Dramatically Change Or Be Destroyed.I love cool old cars. I own a 1967 GTO, a 1976 Chevy Van, and a 1974 Cadillac Hearse. I understand car culture, and why so many of us like our cars. Houston is a city largely built on America's post World War II love affair with the automobile, sprawling for miles and miles in every direction, without a truly great mass transit system. It's hard to get by without a car here, and lots of people identify closely with their vehicles. A lot of us grow up liking cars and the things they can do, and there's definitely a romance with performance and speed, especially among young people. Or there used to be. As noted previously, a lot of kids are choosing not to even get a driver's license anymore. Still, enough people like cars and the culture that goes along with them. And that will probably change when driverless cars become the norm, and even owning your own vehicle isn't seen as necessary anymore. All of the older desirab le vehicles will either become way too expensive for the average person to drive, or will end up in private collections and museums. How much fun will it be to fantasize about hot-rodding a car you don't even drive, much less own? I'm guessing people will mostly find other interests to replace their love affair with cool cars.

4. Many More People Will Opt To Ride Bicycles And Motorcycles.This is just a guess of mine, but I'm going to predict that a lot more people will begin to commute via bike or motorcycle. Why? Well, riding a bike in Houston can be a dangerous activity, mostly due to terrible and aggressive drivers. Almost any conversation on the topic will inspire angry responses like "Roads are for cars, not bicycles," which is patently untrue, and also illustrates the mindset of a lot of drivers. Motorcyclists have long known that the biggest threat to their continued safety on the road are people that drive their cars like creeps. However, after most automobiles are driverless, riding on two wheels may become a lot less risky, making it safer for people who choose to do so. As car ownership becomes more expensive, the same things that are attractive about car culture may shift to bike or motorcycle owners. They may become some of the few affordable modes of transportation that most people can own and customize. Who knows?

3. People Will Have More Time For Other Activities.

Many of us spend hours out of every week stuck driving along in traffic. I'm sure it would be depressing for many of us to tally up the amount of time we're wasting commuting from place to place, when we'd rather be coasting along the Internet instead of I-10. With driverless commutes, more of us will be able to do just that, or any number of other activities that would be incredibly dangerous to engage in while driving. Being shuttled along without having to drive would allow people the opportunity to enjoy writing their novel or perusing Facebook without being a potentially deadly threat to themselves and all the other cars around them. In short, a driverless car trip could actually be relaxing instead of a chore most of us tolerate but don't enjoy.

2. Older People Will Be Able To Maintain Freedom Longer.

One of the eventualities that most people face as they get older is a dreaded lack of freedom brought on by the process of aging. Anyone who has had to take away an elderly parent's car knows exactly what I mean. This is not something many people look forward to, even when safety is the issue. However, driverless cars will nullify most of the reasons that older people have to quit driving. Failing eyesight or other senses aren't a factor when you don't have to pilot your own vehicle. And it's not just older people this would affect. Kids who are old enough to leave the house without direct adult supervision, but who are too young to legally drive would also be able to travel from place to place in a driverless car, as would people suffering from many conditions that make driving their own cars impossible. Some people will complain that a shift towards driverless vehicles would remove certain freedoms, but for a whole lot of other people the opposite will be true.

1. Driverless Cars Will Change Certain Criminal Activities.We've all seen countless high speed police chases on television or perhaps even on the roads we are driving on. Cars are currently involved in all sorts of criminal activities, because they're under the control of an individual, and can be used as that person sees fit. If that person is the type of moron who likes to get drunk and then lead the police in a dangerous high speed chase, then that's entirely possible. Let's face it, the current technology cops have to stop another speeding car are problematic at best.

But that will change with driverless cars. First, they will be loaded with GPS and other technologies that log where they've been driven, so that will probably make certain kinds of police investigations more foolproof. Claiming that you were at church and not Eddie the speed freak's neighborhood meth lab probably won't fly very far if the cops want to check your cars tracking log. This poses questions about rights to privacy, but is a likely scenario.

People who have a lead foot and like to speed? They are probably out of luck, since the car will be making decisions like how fast it can safely navigate specific road conditions. Of course the flip side of not being able to speed will be that police won't be able to ticket people for driving too fast anymore. Combined with far fewer DUI arrests, that will greatly affect many levels of policing. Small towns and police agencies that depend on revenue from moving violations will be largely out of luck, which is good, if your town depends on speed traps to survive, it deserves to die.

But back to that high speed chase scenario. That'll be largely a thing of the past, because it's almost certain that driverless vehicles will have built in technology that allows law enforcement groups the ability to kill the engine remotely, or to have the vehicle simply pull itself over. Hard to rob a liquor store and speed off in a cloud of dust evading arrest, when the car won't speed and the all the cops have to do is type in a code to pull your ass over.

The widespread adoption of driverless cars will affect our society on many fundamental levels, and these are just a few of them. Some of these changes may be embraced and others resisted, but driverless vehicles seem to be on the horizon, and the future is coming whether we like it or not.

Source: 8 FUNDAMENTAL WAYS DRIVERLESS CARS MIGHT CHANGE OUR SOCIETY

Car Tech 101: Forget the flying car, the invisible car is almost here:

Car Tech 101: Forget the flying car, the invisible car is almost here

2:08 July 27, 2015

Brian Cooley takes a look at invisible car technologies that aim to make it easier for the driver to see out from the car -- no more...

Play video

Source: Car Tech 101: Forget the flying car, the invisible car is almost here:

Flying car Mk 2 scheduled for take‑off next decade

CUSTOMERS may still be awaiting delivery of the Terrafugia Transition flying car, but that has not stopped the maker pushing ahead with its new model, the TF-X, the latest designs for which were revealed last week. It is set to go on sale some time next decade and will offer a top speed in the air of 200mph and a range of 500 miles. The four-seater has a plug-in hybrid engine and is likely to cost more than the $279,000 (£180,000) Transition.

Mirror, signal, hijack: hackers take remote control of Jeep

Jeep, the all-American maker of rough and tough SUVs, has hastened to reassure British drivers of its Cherokee that their car will not be vulnerable to hackers. Last week US hackers demonstrated how they could take control of the family SUV and bring it to a stop — on a motorway — from some distance away, using little more than a

Source: Flying car Mk 2 scheduled for take‑off next decade

Trends with Benefits: Gun drones, flying cars, fancy fishin’ and the fall of ESPN

On this week's podcast, we talk about ESPN's streaming woes, the advent of drones, flying cars, and an irrational hatred of paragliders and raspberry beer. We broadcast this discussion live on Periscope at 2:30 p.m. Pacific every Thursday, taking your questions, so tune in next week for more tech discussion and an excellent view of Caleb's neck.

ESPN has reportedly lost more than 3 million subscribers recently. Is it because of the network's lack of a standalone streaming app? Or has the network just stretched itself too thin?

By now, you've surely seen the video made by an 18-year-old in Connecticut recently posted a video of his drone firing a gun. The FAA is investigating, but is it really illegal on his private property? What does this mean for the future of home-modified drones, and how can you stop it?

Meanwhile, the AguaDrone is a lot less terrifying and a lot more lazy. It comes with a sonar fish finder, a camera and the ability to take your lure out over the water and drop it right where the fish are. If someone tries using this thing on a lake where you're fishing, you'll probably wish you had that gun drone.

A viewer on Periscope wants to know what's happening with Amazon drone deliveries. Sorry, no drone deliveries yet, but another company delivered a drone with another drone as a proof of concept. Seriously.

Finally, the future promised in the Jetsons may be on the horizon!  Terrafugia (sorry if we mispronounce it) is developing an actual hybrid flying car. Will flying cars lead to air rage?

Please subscribe and share Trends with Benefits, visit Digital Trends and send in your questions to podcast@digitaltrends.com.

Today's episode features Caleb Denison, Drew Prindle, Nick Mokey and host Greg Nibler.

Source: Trends with Benefits: Gun drones, flying cars, fancy fishin' and the fall of ESPN

TF-X flying car concept gets a fancy new design (Tomorrow Daily 213):

This is the interactive sidebar!

Click any icon for more information as they appear--don't worry, we'll pause the video and wait for you to come back.

Links Polls Galleries

Video Review

Source: TF-X flying car concept gets a fancy new design (Tomorrow Daily 213):

Terrafugia digitally renders TF-X, still hasn't sold a product

Terrafugia premiers new TF-X™ Outer Mold Line

Monday, Jul 20th, 2015 by Terrafugia PR Team

Terrafugia is excited to premier the new Outer Mold Line for the TF-X™, the four-seat, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) hybrid electric aircraft that will make flying easier and safer than ever before.

We are thrilled to share new image and video media that reflect our updated Outer Mold Line (OML) design for the TF-X™, developed in collaboration with Ben Schweighart and Transportation/Automotive Designer Vedran Martinek. Visit our Image Gallery to view our new stills, and watch the new video below.

In addition, a one-tenth scale wind tunnel test model of the TF-X™ has been successfully developed based on the new OML, and is currently on display at EAA's AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. The model will be tested at the MIT Wright Brothers wind tunnel, the same tunnel that was used to test models of Terrafugia's Transition. The wind tunnel test model will be used to measu re drag, lift and thrust forces while simulating hovering flight, transitioning to forward flight and full forward flight.

These new developments represent exciting, significant progress on the path towards the realization of Terrafugia's revolutionary vision for the future of personal transportation. For more information on the TF-X™, please click here, and to stay up to date on the latest Terrafugia news, please sign up for our email newsletter below.

Source: Terrafugia digitally renders TF-X, still hasn't sold a product

Terrafugia unveils new design for TF-X autonomous flying car

Flying-car developer Terrafugia has released new designs for its planned TF-X model. The TF-X is a planned autonomous flying car that was announced back in 2013. The updated design shows a sleeker body shape, a one-tenth scale model of which will be tested in a wind tunnel at MIT.

If flying cars sound a bit far-fetched – never mind ones that fly themselves – then you should bear in mind that, not long after the TF-X was announced, Terrafugia gave the first public flight demonstration of its original flying car model, the Transition. Whereas the Transition requires a runway to take off, however, the TF-X is able to take off and land vertically.

Terrafugia says the aim of its vehicles is to provide "true door-to-door transportation." The TF-X is designed to seat up to four people and will have computer-controlled flight that that will allow the operator to simply input the desired destination before letting the vehicle take off (from a level clearing of at least 100 ft in diameter) and fly itself.

To enable flight, the TF-X design has fold-out wings with twin electric motor pods attached to the ends. The motors are powered by a 300 hp engine and can move from vertical to horizontal positions as required for taking off, cruising and landing. A ducted fan will provide thrust, and the vehicle will have a cruising speed of 200 mph (322 km/h), as well as a 500 mile (805 km) flight range.

As with taking off, the plan is for the TF-X to land autonomously, though says Terrafugia points out that the user will have the final say regarding whether it's safe to land. Once back on the ground, the car's wings will fold down in a matter of seconds to make it suitable for use as a road-going plug-in hybrid once again.

The one-tenth scale model will be tested at the Wright Brothers wind tunnel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where the Transition was also tested. The testing will help to measure the drag, lift and thrust forces of the new design. Simulations of hovering flight, transitioning to forward flight and full forward flight will also be carried out.

Terrafugia says the TF-X will be another 8-12 years in development.

The video below is an animation of how the newly-designed TF-X is projected to look in action.

Source: Terrafugia

Source: Terrafugia unveils new design for TF-X autonomous flying car

Terrafugia Releases New Driverless Flying Car... Animation

Terrafugia released a new video today showing off its latest flying car concept. Should consumers expect to see this new driverless model, known as the TF-X™, zipping around in the sky sometime soon? No. No, they should not.

This new animated video for the TF-X™™ is just that, an animated video. And with all due respect to the many skilled animators of the world, making an animated video of a flying car is much easier than designing, producing, and selling a flying car.

Especially a flying car with specs as impressive as the TF-X™™™! It's driverless! It has vertical take-off and landing! And a 200 mph cruising speed with a 500 mile range! At least on paper. Or, I should say, at least on video. Because again, Terrafugia hasn't built the thing yet.

Now, you may be asking yourself why Terrafugia is wasting its time with a new futuristic rendering of the TF-X™™™™ when it hasn't even released the long delayed Terrafugia Transition™™™™™ model yet. And that would be a completely reasonable question.

Sadly, we don't have a good answer for you. But would you look at that video! Impressive, right?!?!

All we know is that Terrafugia seems to be good at just three things: 1) Raising money, 2) Releasing videos, and 3) Making promises that its flying cars like Transition™™™™™™ are just two years away, despite the fact that we've been hearing that since 2008.

Terrafugia is not a company that specializes in computer graphics. It is ostensibly a flying car company. As in, a company that's supposed to be producing, marketing, and selling flying cars. To date it has not released one to market, which means that it'd be much safer to call Terrafugia an animation production company.

And until we see this company release something more than just animated videos, it's pretty safe to call Terrafugia's TF-X™™™™™™™ exactly what it is: Vaporware.

Contact the author at novak@gizmodo.com.

Source: Terrafugia Releases New Driverless Flying Car... Animation

Rallycross flying cars ready to land on Belle Isle

Ken Block's car flies over a jump during a Red Bull Rallycross event in Daytona Beach, Fla., on June 19.(Photo: Larry Chen/Red Bull Content Pool)

Belle Isle will be jumping next weekend.

Cars will fly through the air and roar around the James Scott Memorial Fountain, kicking up dirt in some spots.

The fun and games on the island July 25-26 will be provided by the Red Bull Global Rallycross folks, who are finally coming to the Motor City to race. The races will be televised live on NBC.

Last year, the series was advertised to visit Detroit, but as the organization's chief operating officer Chip Pankow explained to me Thursday, "the timing was just not right — we thought we were in better shape than we were at that point of the season."

My info was that the Detroit City Council wasn't prepared to hand out building permits for the 2014 event, which I believe was scheduled for a parking lot near the RenCen.

But Pankow says he is delighted with the city and the Department of Natural Resources' response to the series coming to town next week.

"We've worked closely with the DNR to create a good track (at Belle Isle)," Pankow said Thursday. "We are keeping the access to the island open for people to still be able to drive around the perimeter roads, so they can go about their business.

"We will be racing around the paddock area and fountain. It is a .74-mile course that allows traffic access to the island to be unaffected. Our front straightaway will be pit road."

Earlier this summer, the Verizon IndyCar Series made its annual visit to Belle Isle for the Chevrolet Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix. The weekend was wet and stormy, and some passenger cars got stuck in the mud on grass parking lots outside the race course.

It brought howls of protest from residents, who accused the Grand Prix of scarring the park's lawns, though race officials quickly repaired the damage.

Pankow said the Red Bull Global Rallycross doubleheader July 25-26 would not disrupt local traffic on the island or damage the environment.

"We expect a crowd of around 6,000 and we are parking everyone off the island," he explained. "We'll be shuttling them to Belle Isle. We want to be good neighbors and leave no negative footprints behind."

Red Bull will even support outside events like weddings and other happenings on the island, said Pankow, and offer 500 park passports free of charge to locals.

"We want to make considerable contributions to the park," Pankow said. "Not create problems."

So, what is Red Bull Global Rallycross?

It's a frenetic new race series on tarmac and dirt that includes jumps, a tight road course and side-by-side racing, delivered by incredibly powerful and nimble Ford Fiesta STs, VW Beetles, a Chevy Sonic and Subaru WRX STI entries.

Just four years old, RBGR "is fast-paced, dynamic, and definitely a contact sport," explained Pankow. "These cars accelerate quicker from zero to 60 than a Formula One car. The races are six-lap heats and 10-lap finals. The fans can get close to the action. There's a lot of bump-and-run."

The drivers — who are they?

"Rally greats like Ken Block, Tanner Frost and Pat Moro," Pankow said. "And former F1 drivers such as Nelson Piquet Jr. and Scott Speed, plus motocross pioneer Brian Deegan. I think the platform works well. It's pretty democratic."

Construction on the RBGR track will start Monday on Belle Isle. Teams will unload in the paddock area used by IndyCar on Thursday, with practice and qualifying set for Friday.

Over the weekend, gates to the track will open at 10 a.m., while racing in the form of heats, last-chance qualifiers and finals will run through early to late afternoon.

RBGR events also are held at Daytona International Speedway, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Barbados and Las Vegas.

"We are a compact, very portable series," Pankow said. "We set up and break down relatively quickly."

So why Detroit?

"It's the Motor City," Pankow said. "It's an important market for our partners. We believe in Detroit and want to be part of its comeback."

Pankow and RBGR are targeting an 18-34 age audience.

"It's a younger demographic than most other motorsports," Pankow said. "When we started, it was mainly male. Now we are seeing more women at the races and young families. We think the racing fits their DNA. It's a bit different, quite extreme."

What should fans be watching for at Belle Isle next weekend?

"Our signature jump," Pankow said. "We call it the table-top jump. It will be set up between Turns 5 and 6 on the track. The cars will fly about 70 feet."

Contact Mike Brudenell: mbrudenell@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @mikebrudenell.

Rally sport

What: Red Bull Global Rallycross (doubleheader).

When: July 25-26. Gates open at 10 a.m. each day. Races start at 12:15 p.m.

TV:NBC (Channel 4 in Detroit) — 2-3 p.m. July 25; 4:30-6 p.m. July 26.

Where: Belle Isle Park.

Who: Drivers include Tanner Foust, Ken Block, Nelson Piquet Jr., Pat Moro, Steve Arpin, Scott Speed, and Austin Dyne.

Cars: Ford Fiestas, VW Beetles, Chevy Sonics and Subaru in Supercar and GRC Lites classes.

Teams: Include Chip Ganassi Racing, Andretti Rallycross and Bryan Herta Motorsports.

Tickets: General admission $35 Saturday and Sunday ($60 if you buy both days); preferred seating $120 both Saturday and Sunday.

More info: redbullglobalrallycross.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/1Mx5etE

Source: Rallycross flying cars ready to land on Belle Isle

Rocket League review: Enjoyable hockey-like soccer action with flying cars

With the untimely death this week of beloved Nintendo president Satoru Iwata - a lifelong gamer and game developer who never forgot his roots - a lot of video game fans have been waxing philosophical about what it is that makes games fun.

A deep, rich fantasy world full of memorable characters (The Witcher 3) can be fun. A finely tuned shooter with an addictive loot system (Destiny) can be fun. But as Iwata-san knew, the best games tap into a simple, primal joy that needs no explanation or dissection. From the moment you press start, you're hooked.

Rocket League is not a Nintendo game. In fact, it's a PlayStation 4 console exclusive, also available for Windows PCs via the Steam download service. Yet it feels like an old-school Nintendo experience, in the most flattering possible sense.

Rocket League is the sequel to the 2008 PlayStation 3 game Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars, a little-known gem that remains a staple of beer-fuelled video game nights with my buddies. Aside from having an amazing name and possibly the best video game theme song of the last decade, it was the sheer simplicity of the game that drew us in: you drive a car around a soccer pitch and try to knock an oversized ball into your opponents' net. That's literally all there is to it.

The fellas at Top Gear have demonstrated how much fun this can be in real life, with soccer matches that pit different models of real-world cars against one another. But Rocket League's rides are no mortal, earthbound vehicles. They're fast, agile machines, capable of making incredible rocket-boosted leaps and flips and pirouettes, all in the name of outmanoeuvring (or smashing into) opponents and blasting the ball into the net.

Although it's based on soccer, the game often feels more like hockey, as you're digging in the opposing team's corners to clear the ball in front of the net, collapsing back to your end of the pitch when an opponent gets a breakaway, and, to paraphrase Wayne Gretzky, turbo-boosting to where the ball is going to be, rather than where it is.

Unlike a lot of sports games (and despite its insane premise, this is very much a sports game), Rocket League doesn't offer a lot of features beyond its core components. Matches can have from one to four players per side, with 3-on-3 being the sweet spot that rewards both teamwork and skilled individual play. You can also play exhibition games or multi-match seasons against computer-controlled teams, and racking up individual points in games - through goals, assists, saves, shots on net, centring passes and the like - unlocks different car models, paint schemes, antennas and oversize hats (yes, hats) for your vehicle.

That's about all there is to it, but since the game is currently free for PlayStation Plus subscribers and otherwise costs just $20 on the PlayStation Store or Steam, the shortage of bells and whistles doesn't feel like a big deal.

And what it lacks in features, Rocket League makes up for with sheer chaotic fun, particularly when two teams of human opponents are pitted against one another. It's been a long time since I've yelled so much at my TV, whether it's the elation that comes with a rocket-boosted barrel roll that bangs the ball into the net, or an epic backflip save in front of your goal, or a hard-fought win in overtime. Not surprisingly, YouTube is already full of Rocket League highlight reels with insane goals, shots and saves. (Seek out videos by a player called Kronovi to see the kind of aerial acrobatics a monstrously skilled Rocket Leaguer can pull off.)

I do wish Rocket League had its predecessor's wider variety of arenas, although developer Psyonix will likely release more stadiums as downloadable content in the coming months. And the game still has a few rough edges in its presentation, polish and particularly its AI, which seems to go from hopelessly incompetent to freakishly good, without much of a spectrum in between.

Still, Rocket League is one of those games that almost anyone can pick up and enjoy, yet still find themselves getting better at after dozens of hours of play. It's a throwback to the good old days of gaming, when fun mattered more than anything.

Source: Rocket League review: Enjoyable hockey-like soccer action with flying cars

Best of The Gazette, July 14: Poverty, flying cars and the Klawitter saga

Hello there! Would you like to share your details with us for better personalization?

Behind the scenes of GazetteXtra with digital content coordinators Andrew Reuter and Dave von Falkenstein.

July 14, 2015

Gazette archives

Parker head coach Tom Klawitter shows his frustration during a Vikings' game against the Craig Cougars in January 2014.

The Gazette publishes a lot of news in a week. Combine that with all the distractions a weekend brings, and that means there's a good chance you might have missed some important stories. Here's a look at of some of The Gazette's best content from the last week or so:

NEWS

Historic aviation event prompts memories of Berlin Airlift

James Zillmer of Janesville was among U.S. Air Force mechanics who kept the planes running during the lifesaving Berlin Airlift in Germany. Now, 65 years later, he shares his story with News columnist Anna Marie Lux.

American dreaming: Locals react to Rep. Ryan's poverty ideas

Some local poverty warriors consider Rep. Paul Ryan's poverty proposals.

SPORTS

Tom Miller: Weighing in on Klawitter saga

The Janesville School District announced Friday that Jennah (Burkholder) Hartwig had been hired to replace Tom Klawitter as the Parker High girls basketball coach. But trying to get more of this story was difficult, Sports columnist Tom Miller writes.

Fuel & Tires: Can flying race cars be grounded?

With another race car hitting a catch fence and injuring spectators recently, is there anything that can be done to keep these cars on the ground? Auto racing columnist Dave von Falkenstein doesn't think so.

OPINION

Our Views: Newspapers up to watchdog task in open-records battle

Wisconsin newspapers remain powerful and have served notice that they're ready to pounce on any plan to weaken the state's open records law, The Gazette Editorial Board writes.

Greg Peck: Heavy-duty fireworks in my Janesville neighborhood

Some folks in Greg Peck's neighborhood were launching heavy-duty fireworks Saturday evening. He wasn't amused.

ENTERTAINMENT

Almost 85 shows later, Tropp still loves musical theater

For almost 30 years, Jim Tropp has produced musical theater, mostly in Rock County. "Phantom of the Opera" is his 85th production.

Clinton High School band director leaves legacy of music

In 62 years of teaching, Ann Dane Harsevoort touched countless lives over several generations with the power of music.

LIVING

Residents race across Walworth County in gimmick rally

While it might be disconcerting to imagine full-grown adults performing strange tasks in a Delavan park, it was all part of the fun of the second annual gimmick rally the precedes the Cars Time Forgot car show at Delavan's Lake Lawn Resort.

Ask a Poultry Farmer: Why I changed my mind on oyster shells in chicken feed

Dale ends up with egg on his face after changing the feed for his chickens.

WATCH/LISTEN

Xtra Points: Catching up on the Brewers, Bucks and Badgers

After a couple weeks off, Sports reporter John Barry and Editor Eric Schmoldt return to catch up on the Brewers' latest winning streak, the Bucks' offseason moves and Bo Ryan's big Badgers announcement.

Glen Loyd Videos: Scenes from a rainy day

Glen Loyd captures a grey day soaked with a heavy rain, an evening with enchanting orange clouds, and a night graced by a full yellow moon.

Source: Best of The Gazette, July 14: Poverty, flying cars and the Klawitter saga

The Flying Car… Sorta

The Hyundai Venture Project is aptly named for its ability to access any area by not only the open road, but also the air! While it doesn't fly itself, this modern EV features an integrated drone at its heart. Largely designed for commercial purposes, the dual-blade drone is located at the midsection and can be loaded with light cargo to make and receive deliveries or do reconnaissance. Designer Jason Chen's original vision? A car that would change the winery tour industry!

Designer: Jason Chen

Source: The Flying Car… Sorta

Brock Lesnar Hits Fan: Wrestler Throws Car Door Into Crowd During Match, Hits Fan

A warning to all wrestling fans- Brock Lesnar can (and will) throw a car door at you. Not on purpose, obviously, but still. According to Chicagoist, a fan was struck with a flying car door (seriously) thrown by Lesnar in the middle of a live wrestling match.

Here's the full scoop: on Monday, the WWE held a live Monday Night Raw match at Rosemont, Illinois's Allstate Arena. Part of the show involved the six foot two, 300 pound Lesnar tearing the door off a Cadillac and hurling it in a fit of blind rage.

Only, whatever safety measures were in place to keep the door from flying into the audience didn't work- and a fan near the front was hit square in the chest with a large chunk of Cadillac.

Check it out in video form below- it's completely insane.

Don't worry about the fan, though- he's totally fine. According to Cageside Seats, the guy was unharmed- via a statement from the organization, he didn't even need a medic!

"WWE immediately responded to the incident during last night's show. The fan was unharmed and declined any medical attention," read the statement. Oh, and according to several unsubstantiated rumors, the WWE plied this guy with free gifts and backstage passes. All in all, it sounds like "hit with a car door" was a net positive, doesn't it? Maybe he even got to meet Lesnar afterward.

Oh, and in case you're wondering why a live wrestling show would require a man to tear apart a car with his bare hands (instead of, you know, wrestling), Chicagoist explained the gist of the match. Apparently, wrestler Seth Rollins is set to battle Lesnar for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Rollins didn't think he could beat Lesnar, and tried to bribe some fellow heavyweights with a brand new Cadillac. But Lesnar foiled his plan by, you know, reducing the car to scrap metal.

Think you could handle a flying car door to the chest?

Source: Brock Lesnar Hits Fan: Wrestler Throws Car Door Into Crowd During Match, Hits Fan

FLYING PIG crash-lands in Utah: Rider survives, bacon saved

Heartwarmingly, news has reached us here on the Register flying-cars-and-related-matters desk that a large flying pig has crashlanded in Utah. The airborne porker's rider suffered only minor injuries.

The incident took place recently in the town of Provo, Utah, where locals were celebrating the anniversary of the Land of the Free* becoming independent of Britain.

This celebration in Utah traditionally involves the flying of large numbers of hot air balloons in the "America's Freedom Festival Balloon Fest". One of these balloons, sponsored by a local bank, was shaped as a vast flying pig (in representation of a piggy bank named "Seymour", the bank's mascot).

Unfortunately, the basket of a cowboy-themed balloon ploughed into the top of the flying pig not long after takeoff, ripping the fabric. Losing its hot air rapidly, the pig plummeted Earthwards. However its pilot, named as Erwin Oertli, was able to maintain some buoyancy by turning his burners on to full power and bringing the stricken porker down relatively slowly.

"What saved my bacon, was that the head of the pig held a lot of hot air and helped the balloon to descend at a safer rate," Oertli said in a statement quoted by the AP.

The plunging piggy struck the ground in a building site, with Oertli suffering minor injuries. He was the only person riding the pig, and was treated by paramedics at the scene.

We're sorry we were a bit slow getting on this story, but we thought it was critical to inform our readers of such a major event even though we're a few days late. ®

Sponsored: RAID: End of an era?

Source: FLYING PIG crash-lands in Utah: Rider survives, bacon saved

Everybody Gets a Chauffeur

(Image courtesy Hanna-Barbera)

Still no flying cars, but our earthbound cars are about to get a whole lot smarter:

Cars in the next few years will be able to find the fastest route for the morning commute as well as order coffee, pay for it and guide the driver to pick it up.

This transformation of the auto into a full-service mobile device adds up to a potential goldmine. Revenue from the data streams and connectivity components could become a 180 billion-euro ($200 billion) market by 2020, McKinsey & Co. estimates. That's a rich target for Apple Inc. and Google Inc., and automakers are fighting for a claim as well.

Instead of just producing transport hardware, "we have to get into the service industry in a larger way," Tony Douglas, BMW AG's mobility services unit, said to a roomful of executives at a recent conference in Munich.

In a few years I'll be telling my car to have my sons back by 11, instead of the other way around.

Source: Everybody Gets a Chauffeur

Boeing Sky Commuter 'flying car' prototype sells for over $70,000

That private jet will seem so passé if you could park Boeing's Sky Commuter flying car in your garage.

Looking like something from The Jetsons crossed with Battlestar Galactica (the shiny and silly '70s version, not the gritty 2004 reboot) – and a dash of Thunderbird 4 for good measure – it's one of three prototypes built in the late 1980s by Boeing engineers before the project was cancelled.

Unlike previous and mostly laughable 'flying cars' which were more like a regular vehicle with clip-on wings, the Sky Commuter was designed from the ground up as a jet for day-to-day personal use  – an aviation equivalent of the Volkswagen, if you will.

A gas turbine engine drove three fans via a helicopter-based driveshaft for vertical take-off and landing...

... with the thrust exiting the exhaust pushing the Sky Commuter along the ground or through the air.

The vehicle could theoretically cruise at around 135kph (85mph) over a range of 360km (225 miles).

We stress "theoretically" because despite claims by its creators that the Sky Commuter made several successful test flights there are no photos, no film footage and no witnesses outside the company.

Listed for auction at Barret-Jackson, it sold for US$71,500 (A$95,000) – even allowing for the fact that it lacked an engine.

Follow Australian Business Traveller on Twitter: we're @AusBT

Get the latest news from Australian Business Traveller delivered straight to your inbox.

About David Flynn

David Flynn is the editor of Australian Business Traveller and a bit of a travel tragic with a weakness for good coffee, shopping and lychee martinis.

Source: Boeing Sky Commuter 'flying car' prototype sells for over $70,000

Government okayed support for flying car development

BRATISLAVA-based company AeroMobil R&D, which is engaged in the development of a flying car, will be granted investment assistance of nearly €6 million from state coffers towards research and development activities, according to a proposal tabled by the Education, Science, Research and Sport Ministry that was approved by the government on July 1.

The Slovak AeroMobil company has been presenting its flying car of the same name at international expositions recently, raising considerable interest. The prototype road-worthy aircraft – a vehicle that can be converted from an automobile to an aircraft – was designed by Štefan Klein, who worked on the concept for more than a quarter century. Klein first flew the AeroMobil in 2013 and has been testing the capabilities of the flying car in the skies above Nitra almost daily since then. The first vehicle is planned to go on the market in 2017 – at a price comparable to luxury cars.

As a car, the AeroMobil fits into any standard parking space, uses regular petrol and can be used in road traffic like any other car. As an aircraft, it can take off from and land at any airport in the world, paved surfaces or even a grass strip a few hundreds metres long.

The company will use the assistance towards two projects worth €8.34 million to be conducted over 2015-17. The company has allocated €2.34 million from its own resources towards the projects. These are expected to create 43 new job opportunities in the field of research and development.

AeroMobil R&D was set up in March 2015 and is focused on research and experimental development in the area of natural and technical sciences and interdisciplinary research.

2. Jul 2015 at 6:40  |  Compiled by Spectator staff

Source: Government okayed support for flying car development

Flying car’ hits ramp, crashes into house

© Supplied Witnesses from KwaMakhutha in Durban described how a car flew off the road and crashed into a house. (Supplied, ER24)

Durban – A car flew off the road and crashed into a house in KwaMakhutha, south of Durban, on Thursday morning, said ER24.

The driver of the vehicle said he drove over a "ramp" before crashing into the roof of the house, ER24 spokesperson Pieter Rossouw said.

One person was sleeping in the house and was woken up by the car crashing through the roof.

ER24 paramedics arrived on scene to find that the driver and occupant of the house were not injured.

The cause of the accident is still unknown, Rossouw said.

Source: Flying car' hits ramp, crashes into house

Government okayed support for flying car development

BRATISLAVA-based company AeroMobil R&D, which is engaged in the development of a flying car, will be granted investment assistance of nearly €6 million from state coffers towards research and development activities, according to a proposal tabled by the Education, Science, Research and Sport Ministry that was approved by the government on July 1.

The Slovak AeroMobil company has been presenting its flying car of the same name at international expositions recently, raising considerable interest. The prototype road-worthy aircraft – a vehicle that can be converted from an automobile to an aircraft – was designed by Štefan Klein, who worked on the concept for more than a quarter century. Klein first flew the AeroMobil in 2013 and has been testing the capabilities of the flying car in the skies above Nitra almost daily since then. The first vehicle is planned to go on the market in 2017 – at a price comparable to luxury cars.

As a car, the AeroMobil fits into any standard parking space, uses regular petrol and can be used in road traffic like any other car. As an aircraft, it can take off from and land at any airport in the world, paved surfaces or even a grass strip a few hundreds metres long.

The company will use the assistance towards two projects worth €8.34 million to be conducted over 2015-17. The company has allocated €2.34 million from its own resources towards the projects. These are expected to create 43 new job opportunities in the field of research and development.

AeroMobil R&D was set up in March 2015 and is focused on research and experimental development in the area of natural and technical sciences and interdisciplinary research.

2. Jul 2015 at 6:40  |  Compiled by Spectator staff

Source: Government okayed support for flying car development

Flying car’ hits ramp, crashes into house

© Supplied Witnesses from KwaMakhutha in Durban described how a car flew off the road and crashed into a house. (Supplied, ER24)

Durban – A car flew off the road and crashed into a house in KwaMakhutha, south of Durban, on Thursday morning, said ER24.

The driver of the vehicle said he drove over a "ramp" before crashing into the roof of the house, ER24 spokesperson Pieter Rossouw said.

One person was sleeping in the house and was woken up by the car crashing through the roof.

ER24 paramedics arrived on scene to find that the driver and occupant of the house were not injured.

The cause of the accident is still unknown, Rossouw said.

Source: Flying car' hits ramp, crashes into house

Flying Cars in Two Years? Stop Buying the Hype

"The future is here! Get to work like George Jetson!" It seems like every six months, a new company claims to have created a flying car that will finally make production. And every time, we're left waiting for it to come. "Fool me once…" I think is how the saying starts.

From the Terrafugia to the AeroMobil, flying cars have been in a perpetual state of testing for years. That's only natural, as the technology required to deliver a personal flying/driving vehicle that costs less than the GDP of Liechtenstein will take a long time to get right. Items like power storage, and lightweight materials are only now becoming available in a way that companies can even build prototypes, and even those proofs of concept have mixed track records.

PHOTOS: See More Images of the 2014 AeroMobil 3.0

Take the AeroMobil, for example. In March, we reported that it would be available by 2017, though we weren't holding our breath. That skepticism was well earned, and proved right in May, when an AeroMobil prototype crashed in Slovakia. There were no serious injuries, thankfully, and testing will continue. But ready by 2017? Don't count on it.

And that's just the thing-you could swap in a number of company names for the headline, "(Company Name) Promises Flying Car in Just Two Years." First it was the X-Hawk, then it was the Moller Skycar, followed by Terrafugia. And every time these companies promised a flying car, the press (including us) would hop on it like a mouse on a particularly smelly hunk of gouda. But why do we keep falling for it?

PHOTOS: See More Photos of the 2012 Terrafugia Transition

Despite all the reasons for people to be skeptical, it is one of the very definitions of having arrived in the future. The visions of highways through the sky have been beaten into us for years. From the Jetsons to Back to the Future II, personal flying vehicles were supposed to be the mark of progress. Just look at the magazine clipping below.

But the future we longed for is a little more subtle than that. Smartphones, medical advancements, and autonomous cars are the real-world examples of our progress. They're definitely not as glamorous as the idea of a Lexus that hovers, though.

RELATED: Past Dreams of a Flying Car for your Daily Commute

The fact is, none of these vehicles will be ready any time soon. A company MAY get the technology right, but there are the monolithic hurdles of price, infrastructure, and regulation. Even if a company gets the price down to the hundreds of thousands (Maserati-branded flying car anyone?), the FAA and NHTSA will make it very difficult to own and operate these vehicles. Hell, we have a hard enough time driving on roads without the occasional fender-bender. You want to trust the driving public with amounts to a small plane? We should be thankful that these flying cars won't be available any time soon.

Which brings us back to the constant news coverage of something that doesn't deliver. It's like we completely forget the failures (and unfulfilled promises) of the past. The press should be a little more responsible in conveying the hurdles of bringing such a vehicle to market, rather than regurgitate a press release about how I'll be getting around town like Blade Runner.

_____________________________________

Click Here to Read the Original Article on BoldRide

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

comments powered by Disqus
Source: Flying Cars in Two Years? Stop Buying the Hype