Bobjengr, I don't know how the video was made, but it is a pure hoax while being an entertaining bit of graphics. First of all, the stated principle of levitation is not valid, and secondly, the methods of levitation that could work for an object like that car would be way to heavy and much to large. So what we have is a video less close to reality than that Rocky and Bullwinkle movie.
The proper place for a video like this would be in a science fiction publication, or in a gaming magazine.
OK Sylvie-- Fact or fiction? I this some very very cleaver computer-aided video or the real thing? If the real thing, I have to handed it to VW. They have certainly one great imagination. I really like the "crash-avoidance" feature. Very interesting. Great post.
This time you only missed the April 1 date by a few days. This is a good example of what computer animation and graphics processing can do, but it is far away less believeable than Roadrunner and Coyote.
This would be appropriate for an April 1 issue, but not really any other time. Of course it could be sort of entertaining to see just how it was produced. But really, even over an active magnetic track it would not ride that far up. And once again, it simply could not carry enough energy to deliver that kind of power.
Also, at one point we saw the blue glow underneath the vehicle. is this really a car using warp drive? Don't tell us it is magnetic levitation if it was really a warp drive system, using the dilithium crystals.
Many years ago I designed the controls for a mag-lev hover train that did work. But the power source was on the track side because there was simply no way that thyhe train car could carry enough power to lift itself for any amount of time.
Another thing is certain is that the car is not working with the "minerals in the ground" to produce a useable amount of lift.Just assume 100% efficiency and do the math.
I remember Moller's skycar designs since from when I was a kid reading Popular Science in the early 1970s. To my knowledge, not one of them ever managed to carry a human being on board.
I've seen many engineers shake their heads in disgust over two decades at the ridiculous claims he made. These things were never able to fly. They preyed upon hapless, ignorant investors with all sorts of idiotic claims for engines that are thermodynamically unlikely.
The noise from the engines was the least of his problems.
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.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.