When Volkswagen launched its "People’s Car" project, soliciting ideas for futuristic visions and concepts that could be made into reality, more than 119,000 ideas were posted, including the Hover Car, the Music Car, and the Smart Key. All were highlighted at the 2012 Beijing Auto Show.
The Music Car concept involves an LED-covered Volkswagen Beetle that changes color to match the music selections of the driver, while the zero-emission, two-seated Hover Car levitates above the road and propels itself forward using electromagnetic road networks.
The Smart Key concept caters to the uber-attached, providing them with a 9mm HD touchscreen on the ignition key that monitors the status of the car throughout the day and keeps tabs on it via satellite transmission.
If any engineer believed that this concept video was real for more than a milisecond, he doesn't deserve to be an engineer. I'm not even going to start listing the technical problems with this concept. All the explainations in the video are bogus.
I thoroughly enjoyed the video for what it is - a concept, one that's been around for years, one that we as engineers should work towards bringing about but one that practically is many years out.
I agree with the people who are upset about Design News posting something like this, whether it's in a blog or not. Design News is a technical magazine, read by professionals. It's not some college student's web site where he wants to impress his friends and have fun. As an engineer, I expect Design News to keep me up to date with new equipment, new technologgy, things that might be useful in my applications at work.
This blog article has really detracted from the credibility and reliability of Design News. As a result, I will not be paying much attention to the stuff that comes across my computer screen from this source. I'll stick to the magazine, where childish foolishness likely will not occur.
As for ZERO EMMISSIONS, what about all of the ADDED magnetic fields that will be produced? What are the side efects of being constantly surrounded by high power magnetic fields. It doesn't mater what we do, there will always be some form of emmission to deal with.
To call a new technology ECO friendly or ZERO emmission is misleading. EV cars aren't as ECO friendly as people think because of all of the environmental issues that are forgotten about in their production. It's just that these problems are created somewhere else, so people conveniently forget that they even exist.
I agree that Maglev is a neat idea, but not practical. It would take forever to get the planet restructured so that it could be used everywhere. Too bad it wasn't thought of and implemented 150 years ago. It might have had a chance then.
While I haven't taken the time to read all 39 blog entries as of this writing, for me this is a ridiculous undertaking! It's fine to have a maglev @ DISNEY or some other theme parks, but in reality for many of us, it is an exercise in frustration dealing with the local gov't agency responsible for filling potholes. It seems to me based on previous efforts around the globe that to develop this alternative form of transportation, it would take massive REVOLUTION in our road infrastructure, not evolution.
And, one more thing editorials & bloggers have posed the dilemma regarding EV's. While operating one may be considered environmentally friendly, etc. and reduce our dependency of fossil fuel resources, WHERE does the original energy come from to charge these vehicles? By the same token, WHERE does the massive amount of electrical energy come from to power these magnets, etc.? HUH???
As a diehard sci-fi fan since age 11, I watch almost every science fiction movie that comes out. My husband and I used to make a game of pointing out what's created with CGI in a given film, not based on whether the thing itself was improbable (ocean waves, wolves, or aliens), but because the CGI wasn't good enough. But sometime back, it started getting a lot harder (first ocean waves, then animal fur) and recently, in Disney's John Carter, we could not tell at all, except by the unreality of the event or object being portrayed, like this one.
Stuff like this really make me feel dumb. Since it occured in this publication, I believed this was just a highly edited. actual experience. Now I feel like the poor shlub who has been duped by a carnival barker. I agree with an earlier poster who felt Design News should not publish things such as this without a disclaimer.
Am I the only one to recognize the REAL reason for this development. The Communist Chinese obviously know how bad American drivers are and figure this is a better way to conquer. First they buy everything in the U.S. and then kill the population with these things.
What they don't realize is that had they first come out with the HoverCar they could just wait and let our bad drivers wipe out the population and then just walk in and take over when were all dead from auto/hover accidents. Obviously at a much cheaper price than having to build up their Navy/Army/and what-ever-else-they-have militaries.
On the other hand, just think of the road infra-structure costs we could save by just killing half of our drivers on the road now.
One way to keep a Formula One racing team moving at breakneck speed in the pit and at the test facility is to bring CAD drawings of the racing vehicle’s parts down to the test facility and even out to the track.
Most of us would just as soon step on a cockroach rather than study it, but that’s just what researchers at UC Berkeley did in the pursuit of building small, nimble robots suitable for disaster-recovery and search-and-rescue missions.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.