The big one. I've put it here because it will run to politics and tax.
If cost is almost certainly the governing element in the effi iency of things, is a combustion engine more efficient or an electric car or a hybrid.
Electricity is not taxed, car fuel is plus other costs Even though electric cars appear cheaper, in the UK petrol costs an extra 58p per litre in a levvy plus 20 percent. Happily petrol is around the 1.20 mark at the minute and has been for a few years, forgetting the downward blip during corona. So a litre of petrol is costing to the pump 42 p per litre. So for a gallon that is 1.89 sterling. In a 40pmg car that is 4.725p per mile.
I am assuming that a vehicle of given shape will have uniform wind resistance over different velocities. I know this to be somewhat incorrect due to Eddie's etc. Discounting the variables, what formula describes wind resistance? Some inverse of boyancy?
I realise I can Google it, but what is the most reliable generalised formulae?
Given that batteries perform worst under heavy loads and high temperatures, heavy loads making high temperatures that further worsen efficiency, what are the efficiency statistics for electric car accelleration?
Given that the sun is a big ball of plasma gas that was created through gravitational collapse but has since expanded due to its heat, could the core of the sun be in negative gravity territory? I understand that the gravity of earth decreases toward the inner core, could the sun's core actually repel matter?
All of the recent hubbub about the European Super League made me wonder whether the severe reaction to it was more about money than principles. I do not believe the F. A., fifa or Uefa where in line to receive any money from the new league and it just seems like sour grapes.
A European league will happen one day and probably soon, there is no question that the likes of Manchester utd who are massively in debt or Manchester City who are massively subsidised will go on playing in a league against minnows like Norwich who are receiving money at a similar rate, or having to qualify for the European megabucks every season.
What is it that it that resists acceleration at higher velocities. If in relativity you are only aware within a frame of reference, why is high velocity acceleration so difficult?
- Newton is the force needed to achieve an acceleration of 1 metre per second on a mass of 1kg, -The joule is 1 Newton of force through one metre, - We know that to accelerate 1 kg at 10ms takes a force of 10 newton's,
Taking half distance of 5m, 1kg takes:
-5(m)x10(ms)x1(kg)=50 joules per second per kg
To a quarter of the acceleration ie 2.5ms and 1.125 m covered in 1 second:
-1.25(m)x2.5(ms)x1=3.125 joules per second per kg
But if you persist for 4 seconds you are at a velocity of 10ms, yet ke=0.5mv^2 would signify you have 50 joules of energy for an input of 12.5 joules. If there is only force and energy and not a reference of distance this is not prohibited.
I understand that the distance covered in the following 3 seconds will be greater than the 1.25 m covered in the first thus the equation should balance for Kinetic energy, ie in the 4th second you would be covering 8.75 metres not the initial second distance 1.25 metres.
I was just wondering why we do not build an experimental light speed ship? Apparently if we accelerated at 1g for about a year we would achieve almost light speed, that is from the point of the observer of course. To achieve 1g of acceleration for 365 days would not be that unachievable.
1 tonne requires 7 tonnes of oil joules equivalent to achieve this.
10ms x1000kgx=10000 Newtons
10000Nx3600x24x365= 315,000,000,000 joules, or about 7 tonnes of oil
A gradient of 7 to 1 which I think is about 28 tonnes? To decelerate will obviously take a lot more, but we could transmit signals back to earth.
Now let's say global warming is because man is burning fossil fuels AND WHEN fossil fuels run out this increaced warming will also fall. If the earth should enter a cooling period this could be disastrous for crops. Global warming has not conclusively been proved to be co2. It has not been proved either that it is man made.
Anyway how long do we have to guard against failed harvests seen in the 1815 global cooling.
* On the whole we have about 65 years (66 actual, but for maths sake) worth of coal at current usage levels. Coal is the majority of fossil fuels left.
*Population and living standards are on the rise across the world, so the coal reserve is likely to last fewer years.
* Energy usage is doubling every 30 years, its pretty linear for nearly 80 years.
Estimating a 2% linear reduction in fossil fuel use per year we would need 50 years at half production, or 25 years at current usage levels. This would lea e us a nice buffer of 40 years to get ourselves organised.
But as usage doubles every 30 years, accounting for population and living standards this means in the year 2050 we will only have 5 years of reserves left. The maths being an average of 1.5 times current usage over the 30 years which is 45 years of current usage. This leaves 20 years at current levels or 10 years at 2050 levels. This is no where near enough, especially considering a slowdown would have to start from a higher echelon, or 1% reduction in 2050 levels to guard against crop failures.
I was looking for this as Mr Kerry is asking everyone to cut their omissions more. Now my first reaction was that a USA politician lecturing anyone about carbon emissions is a bit of a joke, far beyond hypocrisy. But being the fair minded and well balanced individual I am, I remembered its not about emmisions but about carbon footprints, countries carbon emissions such as china are partly "Embodied" carbon in manufacturing and transport of other countries consumer purchaces, you can't shoot the messenger after all.
Only thing is I cannot find any information on it, lots of emissions divided by populace, but no carbon footprint
Is Mankind going down a evolutionary culdisac? The biggger you are the more likely you are to survive, not just running from lions, even today society dictates the bigger you are the less aggravation you will receive. Up until recently most work linked to survival was done by men because they where larger and stronger.
Yet the bigger you are the square cube rule dictates that you are to the power 3 the mass. This increaced mass is unfortunately detrimental to the body because as monkeys our bodies are not designed to go around running and jumping and this size is having an unfortunate effect on ourselves through hip and knee replacements. It also means that movements are slower and electrical signals take longer. The more food you need. If you fall weighing 20kg you are less likely to injure yourself versus if you fall weighing 80kg as skin is finite in its strength and longer bones are more easily levered no matter how much thicker they are, a bone that is double the length under 4 times the stress would need to be 8 times as strong, whereas even if the bone was twice the diameter it would only be maximum 3 times as strong.
Considering that a bunch of amateurs have made a fortune from share trading on "Gamestop" shares via Internet forums, is it revealed that the reptile conspiracy of the upper classes perpetuation has always been facilitated via opportunity that only they had access to up until now?
Have the rich been funding themselves by ripping off the poor for centuries that they only had access too, and is it over now?