Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

InterPunct t1_j1rtyl2 wrote

In lots of places running them above ground is the difference between getting electric service or none at all, especially rural areas.

And if there's a mandate to run them below ground, service would be more reliable, a "tidier" look, etc., but also much more expensive for people in rural areas already struggling financially.

So yeah, in a perfect world energy would be clean, cheap, reliable, and each and every child would be above average.

3

Itchy_Chemistry_9479 t1_j1rtbnz wrote

Snowboarder since age 12 (37 now). They both take about the same time to learn. I've seen some people start carving on their first day. Snowboarding is physically more demanding because in order to maintain stability, you need to have your weight on either the balls of your feet or on your heels. This means that at any given moment, your calves or your thighs will be activated. Unlike skiing, if you try to distribute your weight evenly between the balls of your feet and your heels, you will "catch an edge" and fall over. This biomechanical fact is most evident on shallow sloping runs that curve either to the left or right. Depending on whether you ride goofy or regular, on runs like that, you will have to spend a long time with your calves or thighs flexed in order to stay upright and that will get tiring quickly.

3

Calius1337 t1_j1rsmjj wrote

They are not. In civilized countries all power lines are run underground.

But the short answer is that it’s cheaper to run them above ground. Sure, it’s more dangerous and hazardous but saving money is more important than saving lives or having nice, neat and tidy cities.

−15

TylerRiggs t1_j1rsa7a wrote

The cost of burying power lines historically was significantly higher than burying lines, especially when needing to be ran over long distances. If development is taking place in a much more compact area like subdivisions or cities, it makes a lot more sense to have the lines buried, but if you are running a line from a city to a town 10 miles away across a bunch of farmland, it doesn’t make much sense to go to the extra cost of burying

10

ExodusRex t1_j1rkfj8 wrote

You need two fixed points separate from each other in order to measure time. Since all things existed in the same location before the mass/energy erupted away from this fixed single point, time was irrelevant.

Time itself is not a construct but the language of mathematics is as we can say "two" or "dos" and mean the same thing. Aliens for instance on another planet could use math just fine to measure things but the would have different language to explain it. Maybe the communicate in with smell and produce specific smells to indicate math language.

1

ExodusRex t1_j1rjohl wrote

The actual energy/mass that shot out from the big bang event. We don't know the actual formation of that stuff but maybe it has always existed in some form until it all collected into one point with the entire mass of the universe existing in a small point. The mass flowered into the universe in a "big bang" a quaint term for the sheer amount of power released into, everywhere all at once.

Quantum Fields can just exist on their own and create interesting interactions. Look them up if you want, really neat stuff. It's an interesting phenomena that can create energy by itself I think.

1

Flair_Helper t1_j1rjkon wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1

explainlikeimfive-ModTeam t1_j1rg24j wrote

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.

Links without an explanation or summary are not allowed. ELI5 is supposed to be a subreddit where content is generated, rather than just a load of links to external content. A top level reply should form a complete explanation in itself; please feel free to include links by way of additional content, but they should not be the only thing in your comment.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

1

18_USC_47 t1_j1rbqka wrote

Fluid linkage in the torque converter.

What does that mean?

In an automatic transmission there may not be a direct linkage with the engine, to the gearbox.
It might be depending on the design, connected through liquid.

One side spins the liquid(connected to the engine) and the other side gets spun around by the liquid.
This can be changed by moving the distance, but even when farther away, there is still a little bit of momentum transferred between the liquid.
Think like having two blenders with one upside down on the other, and powering the other one by turning on one.

There can be direct links which are better for gas mileage but change the dynamics of the car, but that’s getting a bit beyond the general overview.

5

TheJeeronian t1_j1rb99t wrote

In automatic transmissions, there is a torque converter. This is like two fans, one connected to the engine and one to the start of the transmission. This allows the car to sit still while the engine moves.

As long as the engine is moving, the fan is blowing oil at the other fan, and so it's pushing the car forward. When you step on the gas the fan blows harder and so the force forward is stronger.

1

nrron t1_j1raxc8 wrote

Putting the car in gear connects the engine to the transmission. An engine cannot be running and not spinning so even if you’re not pushing the accelerator the idling engine will roll the car if you’re not applying the breaks.

Edit: brakes not breaks. Ironically I answered a question about the difference between the two a while back lol.

9

dont-YOLO-ragequit t1_j1r6ftb wrote

Your early diet and the context/experience linked to it has a huge influence on it.

Ask yourself what would be your perfect 3 course meal with drink and then ask what are your earliest souvenirs of the ingredients you like the most of that meal.

Then imagine the worse 3course meal of hell and do the same thing. Chances are the good things are from good times and the bad times remind you of things and souvenirs you never liked.

1