Assuming that those raised solar panels are build to a height to clear the traffic underneath, they will not be as high as typical street lights. Putting lights underneath the solar panels wouldn’t cover the same area as the (presumably) higher street lights.

That’s a simple solution, with its own drawbacks. You need some sort of elevated support structure, which costs in terms of materials, construction and maintenance/inspection, you introduce posts along your road or bike path, you radically change the horizon/skyline and, possibly, you need to change your street…

When looking for a car, I look at 0-100 kph / 0-60 mph numbers to get an idea of how quick the car is. To get along, to merge properly and safely, I would like to be able to get to highway speeds in around 10 seconds, give or take some. This roughly translates to 100 HP/metric ton. Give or take some.

Well, neutral boyancy is helping NASA a lot for zero-G training (you must have seen some pics of their gargantuan swimming pool) so it’s a step in the direction of weightlessness.

Catching all the fluids would be tricky, but the bit about getting a baby out without gravity is actually almost quite normal. It’s called a water birth where a woman delivers in a bath.

Not in proportions, if you ask me, but in the lighting. The balance between direct and indirect lighting is off, it’s too much direct light.

You mean the elbow of her right arm?

While true, that it all needs to be transported, that transport is in bulk, before it sees a blast furnace. In absolutely huge bulk, actually. It’s transport by rail or ship mostly, after the steel mill, to get to the car plants.

I’d like to point out that building new cars causes a huge amount of pollution, and as a result, keeping an old car longer has its own, less obvious, environmental benefits.

You want pixels with your Metal Gear? Get an MSX2 (emulator)!

I present to you the Citroën DS4 rear door “handle”

As mentioned by others: that’s not an engineering failure, it was a decision making failure.

No one posted this yet?

Technically that would work, but it would have some pretty hefty drawbacks. Rust and aluminium make thermite, for instance and part of the iron will dissolve in the molten aluminium, things like that.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Both metals can be, and are being, recycled. Both recycle streams need good quality monitoring to keep unwanted metals out of the stream. (I’m looking at you Copper!) Both need processing and adjustment of chemical composition to get the alloy you want. Steel has an advantage in that you…

Patrick, please take of the kid gloves.

Like I said, it depends on what you consider “better”.

It’s a matter of ratios. Yes, the added back pressure of the turbo, or turbos, means it costs more energy to evacuate the cylinder. The pay-off, however, is bigger than the investment: the energy you don’t have to spend in moving bigger parts around faster against a greater surface area is considerably greater than…

It’s about parasitic losses. If you turbocharge, you can get the same power out of lower displacement. Smaller displacement is realised through smaller pistons, so less weight moving up and down (reciprocating mass) smaller stroke and less friction from pistons against cylinder liner because there is less surface. Add…

That depends on how you define “better”. Because (and I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir, so this is stating nothing new) superchargers/blowers use crank power, which makes them parasitic, while turbos use energy from the exhaust which would go to waste otherwise.