I've done r&d with materials in a similar situation. One problem is surface leakage paths. You can't just think of the cap as a simple component anymore. The case, mounting, humidity, vibration, etc can cause a sudden short circuit. Literally breathing on the circuit could cause it to explode. So now you have to can it in transformer oil or similar. That's got its own set of headaches.

[removed]

>A blind study has a researcher doing something with a subject that is not aware of the study's true / detailled aim.
>
>A double blind study has a researcher tasking another researcher to do something with a subject, with neither the subject nor the tasked researcher knowing what the study is actually about.

This is not correct and would violate principles of informed consent. A blind study is one in which the participant doesn't know if they are getting the the study drug (or procedure or whatever) or if they're getting a placebo. A double-blind study is one in which the participant and the tasked researcher both don't know whether the participant is getting the drug or the placebo. In all cases the participant must know what the purpose of the drug is and any negative effects taking it or not taking it may have.

[removed]

[removed]

Double technicality here: sucked would still work since the mechanics of sucking is to create a vacuum in one area making a pressure gradient that pushes things into the vacuum.

For example when you suck in air into your lungs you actually just expand your lungs leaving an area of low pressure that forces and shoves it's way into them filling them up. Since the mechanics are the same id argue that suck would be fine in this use

[removed]

Can the motor disorganization be offset by exercise? Power through it basically?

I should've been more specific, I was thinking more along the lines of carnivorous megafauna that would directly antagonize kangaroos. The camels are an interesting case, but haven't been there long enough to seriously disrupt the ecosystem. Given a few million years, they likely will push the kangaroos out of some prime real estate if left unchecked. Every other part of the world has large hoofed mammals and large cats, and nothing quite like a kangaroo.

[removed]

What I meant by "advanced" was that modern aviation have rather low specific output compared to automotive engines where you could have a 200hp/liter engine in a Toyota so they don't have high compression ratio and/or boost pressure. And these highly efficient engines run on say 98 octane unleaded

Entanglement is data/information about the state of the particle at the moment of entanglement.

But they can't transfer any information after the entangled particles have been seperated.

Well they are not native but there are over a million Australian feral camels. These animals are much bigger than kangaroos. Yet there are roughly 50 million kangaroos in Australia. In Australia kangaroos fare better than camels. Effective body plan?

[removed]

No I never want to argue or change anyone's mind, I just wanted to discuss normally, but it look like the way I wrote it really misleads people.

Oh, definitely. All the extant bipedal animals are pretty decent at what they do in various ways (the ostrich uses its wings as rudders to steer at high speeds, which is neat). It just seems that large cats are their greatest enemy, and probably a much bigger obstacle to their success than other carnivorans like dogs and bears. Big cats have successfully hunted both apes and flightless birds for millions of years, and would probably give kangaroos a lot of trouble as ambush predators if they ever found their way to Australia.

These animals are wallaroos. The one on the right is standing almost vertical.

When a factory rebuilt engine costs $60,000 USD, you’re reluctant to swap it for the sake of being green

Electric aircraft do not have the range and likely will never have the range of liquid fueled aircraft. That is, as long as we rely on batteries or some kind of capacitor technology.

That inherently limits their usefulness as a mode of transportation.

Sure, they might be fun to buzz around the field for 45 minutes or an hour, but you're not taking a battery powered Future Cessna to take the family to visit Aunt Edna for Thanksgiving, 500 miles away.

Having said that, if you are talking "electric" in the widest sense, then there might be room for aircraft powered by fuel cells. Those might have enough range, or if not, then a quick stop at an airport midway between to refuel would probably be acceptable, because it wouldn't take long to accomplish.

On the other hand, if you've got an aircraft that comfortably cruises at 88 knots in still air, and has comfortable range of 130 nautical miles, you're going to have to make 3 stops to recharge on the 435 nm trip to Aunt Edna's. Figuring a quick 45 minute recharge and 15 minutes for approach, landing, taxiing to and from the runway, etc., you're adding at a minimum around 2.5 hours to the journey.

So your 5 hour flight is now 7.5 hours long. That works out to about 67 MPH, which puts it in the reach of using a car instead.

[removed]

Just want to add that bipedalism isn't even an efficient evolution within humans. We basically just shifted our hips and torso to an upright position, but everything else stayed the same. From a skeletal or evolutionary standpoint, only the legs/hips really evolved to the bipedal part. The rest of us is catching up.

This is more likely a cultural thing rather than language thing. Your sentence structure and vocabulary are completely fine, you are just missing the nuances of how to navigate the conversation.

It's like the difference between an argument and a debate. If you are entering a conversation to change someone's mind but willing to let yours change too, that's a debate/discussion. If you are entering a conversation only to change others minds, that's an argument. It definitely looked like you were just trying argue, but obviously that wasn't the case as you just didn't have all the information and tools yet.

There are other factors involved. The dinosauria had very efficient lungs and light bones, and seems to have dominated over most types of terrain. Kangaroos have evolved connective tissues between the diaphragm and the legs, so use their leaps to power their breathing, and are very efficient over long distances. They do fine against wild dogs (dingos).

[removed]

[removed]