OK, a quick explanation of the car thing. A car that's moving at 25 mph actually is at a disadvantage when it comes to acceleration compared to a car at rest. Assuming a one-speed transmission, the engine is already turning pretty fast, meaning it's completing more cycles and burning more fuel. So the engine has to go faster and faster, completing more and more cycles, burning more and more fuel in the same space of time as the car approaches 50 mph. Hence the consuming four times the energy to get to 50 mph.
Has what I've said made sense? Does the whole thing just weird you out with the unintuitiveness? Or is it just seem too abstract and "mathy" to get that feeling?
I'm wondering what Nilly and Gud would think....
The subject combines two areas of fascination to me - math/physics, and the human brain's intuitive understanding of how the world/reality works. 'Cuz the two are often at odds.
My friend had her cat fall out a six story window (or was it 8? I've now forgotten, dang!) and survive.
Also, how do you test and remain even vaguely ethical?
I was going to say, based on my watching of Animal Cops, I bet there is enough anecdotal evidence to provide at least a reasonable conjecture.
Assuming a one-speed transmission, the engine is already turning pretty fast,
But... aren't cars not actually one-speed? You ride around in a car, you get used to hearing the engine change pitch as it accelerates. (Even an automatic like mine!). I think that using a one-speed bike would be a less confusing/more intuitive explanation.
I'm not willing to get up at the buttcrack of dawn for an office. I have skewed priorities.
that is a super tough one for me. Depends on how much time, I guess.
But... aren't cars not actually one-speed? You ride around in a car, you get used to hearing the engine change pitch as it accelerates. (Even an automatic like mine!). I think that using a one-speed bike would be a less confusing/more intuitive explanation.
Yeah, that's true. Considering a multi-speed transmission makes it more complicated, which makes the intuition more difficult to chase about.
The short answer is that having the transmission shifting during the acceleration makes no difference (assuming the engine is equally efficient at different RPMs, which actually is not the case). A transmission picking a different gear ratio is just a sort of tool (in the classical physics sense). If you use a lever to increase the amount of motion of the one end of a fulcrum as you push the other end, you're not actually using less energy to move an object further, as you would need to use more force as you push down. A tool (in the classical physics sense) doesn't give you more energy, it just trades force for distance to give you an advantage in moving something. Like, if you use a lever to move something with less force, you'll have to push your end of the lever further, so the total energy to move the object is the same. The same principal applies to different gear ratios in a transmission.
Bah. I am trying to make the explanation short, but I think I should be more detailed. But I really should do some work today too....
It isn't just getting the feet under them, it's the time it takes their bodies to relax to absorb the shock of landing.
My itunes just played
On the road again
and now I have to leave for work.
I think the earworm is going to be massive and unavoidable.
Goin' places where I've never, ever been
And I can't wait to get on the road again...
Hec, don't look!
But you can look at this.
Lunch report: I chose Chipotle. Vegetarian burrito, sour cream, guac, mild salsa, for those wondering.
I wish there were a Chipotle convenient to me.
