Yeah, neat idea, but I'm not seeing the applications outside of (maybe) high end competitive racing where a few percent efficiency (that isn't offset by losses elsewhere, like weight) is worth it. In that case the aluminum would be okay because you'd just replace it after every event. For the likes of e-bikes and such, on the other hand, if you're going to use a shaft drive, why not just put the transmission entirely on the drive sprocket (maybe with a CVT like Netwboy suggets). This thing, as a whole, strikes me as too much out-of-the-box engineering without actually leaving the box. Of course, all that said, I'm always in favor of trying new engineering ideas so I approve.

Yeah, the whiteboard wasn't the most elegant way to convey that information, but it's quick and efficient, and it's still better than having one of the characters flat-out say that stuff even though they'd all know it already.

As for the second issue, as greatgooglymoogly mentioned, they're only able to shoot the creature because of the dumb luck of the frequency of the hearing aid weakening it and causing its armour to pop off. Deus ex machina, maybe, but the film spends enough time planting that seed that it doesn't feel too blatant.

To be fair, what I thought is new is the cheaper motor running on regular unleaded gas more efficiently. Airplane fuel is insanely expensive compared to gas, and harder to get in remote places.
Ground effects plane/boats have been around for quite some time, but not in a commercially useful configuration. This seems like a big step up from small ferries or tour boats (faster and smoother rides) and far cheaper than small planes to buy and operate.

Yeah, the biggest ecranoplan was enormous, with immense lifting capacity but little evasive capacity, so they were awful in practice as military vehicles except as transports well behind the front. I can't find any instances of them being used in conflicts.

Well, things are not as rosy as folks like Steven Pinker would like us to believe. As much as I dislike resorting to Hollywood for philosophical insights, True Detective was absolutely on point in this quote:

„Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.“

Now, they were talking about a preacher. But I'd argue this applies to scapegoats as well. And if your arguments undermine the scapegoat, it starts losing its efficiency as a focal point of people's discontent.

Most of us have so much day-to-day shit to deal with that outsourcing the macro-shit to a boogeyman, any boogeyman, helps us get through the day without wanting to bash our head against the wall. Or bash someone else's head in, for that matter.

This doesn't excuse this level of self-delusion, but maybe it explains it to some degree. I'd say keep doing what I know you've been doing for many years: present your case in a respectful manner.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

Haven't viewed the video yet, but just common sense tells me no propulsion system is 100% efficient, so the losses over time will be larger, and less efficient in overall fuel use.

It's like the most efficient way to drive a hybrid is to floor the accelerator to get to speed, then try to go as fast as possible, using as little accelerator pedal as possible.

Conversely, the rocket would just be wasting fuel trying to slow down before it had to full burn to stop in time.

I'm just impressed they keep the terminal velocity down enough they don't need to use drogue chute(s).

"they were doing just fine with stones"

Were they? What was the average life expectancy? How about childbirth mortality rates? Hell, how's their dental health?

Obviously, a bit of iron isn't going to fix those problems, but it might make them more efficient hunters. Maybe their diet has improved because of this?

"Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now"

Is that necessarily a bad thing? We had the stone age, we grew out of it.

I feel like it's easy for us to want to preserve their way of life, but no-one is giving them the option. If presented with a choice, most people wouldn't opt for a neolithic lifestyle. Even the so-called "paleo" adherents aren't really living that way.

I completely get where you are coming from, but part of me also feels like we are keeping humans in a zoo.

I honestly don't know what's the right answer.

Your video, The Unreasonable Efficiency of Black Holes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm sure the math is sound, it usually is with things like this.
I always giggle to myself though when I think of the plausibility.

First, find a black hole.
Second, travel to the black hole
Third, Find a way to package the energy caused by momentum of something free-floating in space.
Then, transfer that packaged energy back to where it's needed.

Seems the practicality is far less than the efficiency at which the energy is created.

I agree for the most part, but with batteries, now becoming reasonable in size and price, it's not so hard to be totally off grid. Micro hydro can also be efficient power storage if properly designed with a dual reservoir system.
Granted, that seems to work best in small scale setups so far, but there is an island .....(https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/17/349223674/tiny-spanish-island-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy)
...currently (since 2014) using this tech to be nearly 100% green.

Dismissing projections as unrealistic without fully examining them may doom our economy and planet.
That's what happened with solar, people just claimed it's expensive and unreliable, which meant those they convinced didn't know how wrong that is, and didn't buy systems or support solar farms. I ignored them and did some light math, and found that even an expensive high tech system with batteries, professionally installed, would pay for itself in about 8 years, with a 20 year expected lifespan (and I live in Humboldt county, with the foggiest airport in America, not Arizona). I'm damn glad I didn't listen. Even a 2 year delay would have cost me 1/2 my rebates, making the system take an extra 2+ years to pay for itself by costing me thousands upon thousands of dollars (instead of saving me thousands per year).

Edit: Also, here in Humboldt we just switched to choice in electricity, we can choose regular pge power (mostly old school generation), a mixture of up to 75% (I think, maybe higher) renewable for cheaper, or 100% renewable for more. All 3 now bill transmission (including voltage/frequency regulation) separately, so it's easy to see what generation alone costs. It's clear so far that mostly renewable is the best bet economically, and I assume it will become more renewable as new technologies become available.....at least I hope so.

Counter-rotating propellers sparked my curiosity when I first saw them on a British Seafire Mk46 at a flight show in the early nineties.

So my amateur's answer would be that it's about the problem of turning the engine's power into thrust. With increasing power, you can either increase the propeller's RPM or its area. So you either a) spin it faster, b) increase its diameter, c) use a more favourable blade geometry, d) add more blades.

a) and b) both lead to blade tips moving faster, and once they approach the speed of sound, wave drag sets in and ruins your day. b) also runs into issues in terms of ground clearance. Thus the Kim Jong-un blades on planes like the An-70: short and fat.

c) is rather difficult to do in terms of manufacture -- that's why more pronounced blade shapes are a relatively recent development.

d) on a single propeller decreases the efficiency of each blade as it passes through the previous blade's vortex. That's why, for instance, German planes in WW2 almost exclusively relied on 3-bladed propellers with increasing blade size, whereas Supermarine went to four and even 5 blades rather quickly. You can work the issue to a certain degree by modifying the blade geometry, thus the 8 blade props on a modern A400M.

Adding more blades by adding another propeller gets around d), although the aft prop still loses efficiency compared to the front prop. On the other hand, counter-rotating props massively reduces problems with torque, which can be rather horrendous for single engine prop planes. The Bf 109, for instance, is (in)famous for being difficult during take-off as it pulls to the side quite violently.

An interesting experiment, but I'm more interested in how many people get through the intersections per minute, not how many cars.

If you have 3 people in a car only getting 333 cars through per minute and one of the super complicated ones (1,000 cpm) with only 1 person per car, it's the same throughput, as far as I'm concerned.

And, get 2 bullet trains in there with the intersection just being 2 tracks over 2 tracks with 500 people inside each one, that's much more efficient.

Cars are stupid. QED.

It would be nice if TSA could move a crowd this efficiently.

No discussion of traveling wave or thorium reactors. There is new tech that uses fuel much more efficiently and produces less waste.

Restricting access to this type of technology through laws and regulations is not the answer. If you try to prevent bad people from slaughtering their enemies en-masse using technologically advanced and highly efficient means, they're just going to do it another way. Will you outlaw knives or trucks next?

And if only the government has this weapon, then you have no means to fight back when they come to take your rights away. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government.

The only way to stop a bad guy with autonomous murder drones is a good guy with autonomous murder drones.