[removed]

[removed]

Stronger muscles != stronger nerve signals.

But X muscle fibers working at 85% efficiency > 3X muscle fibers working at 85% efficiency, so someone who works out may find they're less noticeably hampered by the loss in muscle strength, since they had more to spare to begin with.

I grew up where you had to pause telephone conversations when the planes flew over.

[removed]

That's correct. The bar majority of piston engine aircraft use a direct drive from engine to propellor. More complex aircraft use a constant speed propellor as a form of gearbox, allowing the blade pitch to be altered while maintaining a constant blade rpm.

Yes this is a big one. An aircraft engine will run at 60% power or more for almost the entire flight. A car engine is typically running at far lower power levels than that.

[removed]

An O-360 is a direct drive engine, the propeller is attached directly to the crankshaft. And that's the case for most light aircraft piston engines. Some (especially more modern ones) have a single speed reduction gearbox.

The only thing an aircraft piston engine does is turn a propeller through the air, and that absorbs nearly 100% of the power produced by the engine. Swinging an 80 inch diameter propeller at 2700 RPM will use a lot of power and required a lot of torque.

You raise variable pitch propellers or constant speed propellers. These are used on some piston engine aircraft (the rest use a simple fixed-pitch propeller) and all turboprop aircraft. They do vary the pitch of the blades to find the most efficient angle both in climb and at higher speeds, due to the mechanics of how a propeller works. But this doesn't really affect the fact that a ton of torque is required to turn the propeller.

That makes sense but ultimately isn't a satisfying answer for me. Personally I'm more concerned about the specific biochemical pathways that control and cause this effect.

How will humans look like when all our body parts catch up?

Walking on two legs lets you;

- Walk further

- Use more tools

- Cool down easier

- See predators coming from further away

The disadvantages are

- Lower back pain and similar problems.

- Poor climbing ability

- Lower sprint speed.

it seems our niche, where we rely on tools and walking long distances, is a lot rarer than the niche that relies on sprinting and climbing

[removed]

Why so much torque? Cars go up hills, but piston engines are pushing a propellor through air, which at LOW revs doesn't offer much resistance.

Or am I missing a point that cars have gearboxes and maybe planes have no gearboxes? So 2700rpm is the prop speed, same as the crankshaft speed?

(and I believe instead of changing rev speed, prop aircraft change the blade angle. So the engine stays at the same speed, but the load can vary greatly?)

[removed]

The pedantry here is incredible...

Dash-8: 1258 built

ATR-42: 497 built

ATR-72: 1000 built

Beech 1900: 695 built

Saab 340: 459

Those would be all the most popular turboprop airliner types in service today, totalling 3909 aircraft built, ever. And we're talking Part 121 aircraft here, not Part 135. Though adding Part 135 would very likely add to my point.

There have been over 11,000 737s built, over 10,000 A320s, and tens of thousands of other Boeing and Airbus types. Plus 4000 CRJs. Plus 3000 Embraers of various types.

But if you want to pretend my comments aren't valid because I used the word "jet" instead of "turbine" and thus excluded a small proportion of the global airliner fleet, go right ahead.

No the optical fiber remark was a comparison.

As a not physicist I'm wondering if the entanglement is being used with the condensate method of capturing photons and reproducing them in another space.

Entanglement is a constraint on information about the particles. ie. if one was spin up, the other must be spin down, but we don't know which is which.

Let me ask this question - are you thinking about sending information over optical fiber using paired photons? Entangled photons can't send information, there must always be a classical information pathway for networking applications.

That's not really the case. You will find engines that are full of electronics and pretty much comparable to modern car engines.

However! Keep in mind that certifying a new aircraft engine is an order or two of magnitude more complex and expensive process than anything that gets into a car. You want to change the type of spark plugs? Change to an ignition system? Well, tough luck! Needs to be recertified.

There is also the fact that unlike a car engine, where if you get an electronic failure your check engine light comes on and you call a tow truck, in an airplane if something dies, it is a full blown possibly life-or-death emergency.

So you do not want to stuff your plane with a ton of electronic gadgets that could fail. The simpler the better in this case. Or you must provide redundancy, which is very expensive compared to e.g. a pair of magnetos for ignition. The other issue is weight, especially for ultralights but even for bigger aircraft.

The more complex electronics you add to the engine, the more it will cost to have it certified and even more to maintain. Keep in mind that a modern Cessna 182 costs upwards of $600 000 new today, the engine and related avionics being a large part of it.

You can't compare this at all with car engines. It is a completely different regulatory and reliability ball game.

There are plenty of modern electronically controlled (FADEC - that's what you know as ECU from car engines) and fuel injected aviation engines around.

However, typically not in your flight school's 40 years old Cessna 152/172 but in bizjets, larger helicopters and high end GA planes, like Cirrus SR22, DA-62, for example - which has two diesel (!) engines. Lycoming produces multiple engine types that are fully electronically controlled, Continental does as well, Rotax has several fuel injected engines, etc.

Exactly. 96k allows finer resolution and filtering when it comes to stuff like EQ and dynamics.

[removed]

It wouldn't even make sense to have leaded jet fuel since the whole point of the lead additive is to prevent premature ignition of the fuel (knocking) during compression by the piston.

How people conceptualize it is slightly different depending on the wording, I'd say.

The example above... if you were at the far end of the station from the hole, you'd feel close to nothing except the air leaving you. There is no "suck" feeling.

When many/most people think of "sucking" they sort of envision a force that would permeate the internal structure and suck at everything.

Instead, talking about the atmosphere "pushing", it's intuitively obvious that if you're at the far bulkhead, you feel almost no force.

Do you think I should use fermentable foods or probiotics to bring me closer to a more normal person with a microbiota who has an appendix? or maybe it makes me even better than a normal person? Perhaps if I have bowel complications or intolerances, FMT would be the way to go.

In a massive environment (imagine an school/office building sized space station) without bulkheads where a hatch was open to Vacuum, the wind/pressure would be ridiculous and would last for a long time.

No sane engineer would design such a station.

But SciFi likes to imagine they would.