That's not an opposed piston configuration.

Radial engines have much more in common with typical overhead valve engines, except that instead of the cylinder layout in an inline or V configuration, they are placed at a radius from the centerline of the crank.

Opposed pistons share common cylinder walls and spark plugs, but due to clearances, valving is difficult. Each piston becomes the other's combustion chamber. What ends up happening is that you need two crankshafts, and then gearing of some sort to link them together. The big benefit is that it can be a pancake motor - very low profile, similar to other flat fours/sixes/eights, but turned inside out.

Opposed piston motors have been around since the 40s in terms of innovative designs. As far as unique engine variants go, early imagination was not quashed. Books older than you have been written about the pros and cons of I-head, F-head, T-head... 2-cycle diesels, 4-cycle diesels, etc. Check out the Knight sliding sleeve engine. It's all been thought of and conceived, but whether it be incredibly high manufacturing costs or less-than-reliable operation, some force has prevented their use from becoming mainstream.

History repeats itself. What's old is new again.

And why are we beating the dead horse that is ICE engines when we could be advancing other technologies? I wrote in a previous comment how it's very similar to new titanium horseshoes... great, but why?

That proves his point even more. If that information was factual, it paints a more accurate picture of the entire situation.

Had the fact come to light that he was doing it on a city sidewalk at noon, that paints even more of the picture. Throwing in a fallacy that it was in front of a preschool distorts the picture.

It's why when you go before the court, the common perjury statement requested is, "Do you swear to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

You are the very first commenter I've seen that actually brought this to light. Many others are comparing CO2 emissions of gas ICE vs. diesel, or miles per gallon... but it's all a moot point.

We might as well talk about the new titanium horseshoes in production.

I think you greatly underestimate the maintenance costs on that particular 22 year old car, assuming you can find one that doesn't have a blown motor.

Let's compare a few of the maintenance items on ICE vehicles vs. pure electric, shall we? Note that the Volt is not a pure electric, but the Nissan Leaf is.

ICE vehicles:
5 quarts of motor oil
Oil Filter
Air Filter
Fuel Filter
Spark Plugs
Serpentine Belt
Timing Belt
Windshield Wipers
Alternator
Starter
O2 sensors
Coolant/Antifreeze
Transmission flush
Battery
Tires
Brake Pads
Rotors


Pure Electrics:
Tires
Brake Pads (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Rotors (less wear/longer MTBF due to regen braking)
Windshield Wipers
Battery


I realize that several of these are not directly comparable - obviously the battery prices will be different between the two, although the time required between replacement will be similar. Some parts are replaced more often than others, and this list does not include large part failures such as transmissions, differentials, or engines (none of which pure electrics have, but different ICE car manufacturers have different luck with).

YMMV. 80 is really fast for an old Ford Fiesta, but barely cruising for an Audi R8. It's also really fast if you're 85 years old, not nearly as fast if you're 25.

I'm guessing the Volt will do just fine at 80 MPH, along with most modern cars. It just won't be as efficient compared to a slower speed.

From an engineering standpoint, has anyone ever determined how much I/O that would take?

Many biped mammals living in the North American continent cannot correctly follow a simple pre-determined decision tree based on sensory input. Does this mean that the car is smarter than those biped mammals?

This.

Thank you for explaining that to the rest of the country. I have a lot of friends who live elsewhere that ask me about her on occasion, and this pretty much sums up how I explain it to them.

Many PLCs don't run .nix, they run their own proprietary version of ladder logic. PLCs aren't playing MP3s, don't need any drivers for printers, and run under 500 MHz. Many use proprietary networking protocols, or some version of CANbus or TCP/IP to communicate with other PLCs in the network, and they use RS-232 or RS-485 to communicate with a host computer for program uploads. In fact, the vast majority of PLCs out there don't even have a display device.

Now, having said that, Siemens and other industrial controls builders use Windows (I presume Windows CE) because HMI devices (which are sometimes also PLCs) are becoming highly graphical in nature, and it becomes easier to develop system screens with "drag and drop" technology than it is to try and code those screens in hex. If the user wants a screen changed or added, it's a 30 second affair instead of an 8 hour task.

The article does not say that this worm had anything to do with Windows, only that the Siemens HMI device was running Windows. It did say that someone had to duplicate a Siemens industrial network to research the worm. What this means to me is that the worm was developed to spread over one of the proprietary industrial networking protocols, probably by someone with some decent Siemens experience.

Does not follow.

There are lots of individuals out there with lots of poorly researched conspiracy theories. (The earth is flat, faked moon landings, etc.) They tell their audiences what they really believe, regardless of trying to please as many people as possible. Some even offer "proof" and "independent research." Is that still a good thing? Sure, it's freedom of speech; and sure, people have the right to buy into it if they choose. Some do, because it's easier to just accept it and follow the rest of the sheep than it is to do the research for yourself. If more and more Americans bought into a flat-earth theory because it was explained in a way that made sense to them using a white board and lots of gesticulating, do I still get to weep for my countrymen? I should hope so.

I choose to get the occasional political commentary from Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart, the twice a month I care to look for it.

By the way, I should be thanking you for posting so late in the game; because of your comment I happened to see my "-1 troll" mod, the first time I think I've ever received that distinguished honor.

Sorry, I posted farther below you, but you sound like you already know the story.

I had to re-read your last sentence to make sure you weren't saying that Glenn Beck is embraced by the mainstream. Because if you were (and if, somehow, that were true) I would weep for my countrymen.

And then I'd slap the shit outta 'em.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/monticello-appeals-court-win.ars

Then, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/want-50mbps-internet-in-your-town-threaten-to-roll-out-your-own.ars

And finally, http://monticellofiber.com/

Wishing I had mod points to give you today, even though you're only an AC... Excellent critical thinking skills, solid "A" material.