[removed]

u/Dr_Sigmund_Fried is correct and you sort of are too. Cars don't NEED all the horsepower they have, they do need some to get up ramps (think freeway) and such but they could go with a lot less. As far as the original question Dr.SigmundFried is right about the torque to horsepower ratio in farm equipment. and u/mmmmmmBacon12345 nails it with their response and u/PckMan explains the difference in what those two measurements of force actually are. hope you learned something new today, please check for yourself though it's good practice. Learning something new is always a cool thing to do.

What is skin resistance?

address 220, irq 5, dma 3.

Several reasons:

1. Conventional chemotherapy may still be more effective in treating the cancer unless it becomes treatment resistant.

2. Along similar lines, since conventional therapy has been out longer, there is generally more evidence for treatment efficacy for certain kinds of cancers, especially as first line.

3. Immunotherapy is very expensive. Insurance may not cover certain therapy as first line therapy unless you have failed other treatments. An older drug like paclitaxel or carboplatin may cost $100 per dose, while a common immunotherapy drug like pembrolizumab may cost $30,000 (in the US).

4. While generally immunotherapy is better tolerated with fewer side effects, it is still has significant side effects.

The other important concept to note is that MOST cancers aren’t an urgent medical condition. You have time to try different therapies and holding off on treatment with immunotherapy until the cancer “progresses” generally doesn’t make it less effective (it’s more complicated but for simplicity).

Cancer “progressing” could mean that it is becoming resistant to the current drugs being used, in which switching to immunotherapy at that point wouldn’t make it less effective than starting with it.

Cancer “progressing” to an advanced stage also doesn’t necessarily mean it would be less effective because cancer treatment is based on guidelines which is expert consensus based on studies. For a particular cancer, if immunotherapy is started when the cancer progresses to stage IV, it could mean that it’s because that drug or immunotherapy was only studied in patients with stage IV cancer, so the guidelines only recommend initiation at that point.

For more aggressive cancers, they may start with a more aggressive treatment approach from the beginning.

Blood conducts better than tissue due to the water in it. Those pads measure your skin resistance, which varies with your heartbeat

I knew the moment I posted that someone would come along with a tractor drag race.

[removed]

>Nobody's winning any races in a tractor....

Ahem...

Wonderful explanation, especially the very last part! Summarized very succinctly!

yes and no, there is actually a specified timeline of the universe's expansion down to the minute and even the second(or less than second lol). let me see if i can find the one that I was taught on... ok, so on second thought... Obviously I can't just upload a book to reddit, but the graphic and explanation in this link is similar enough to my understanding that i'm trusting it to teach you. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

basically, it cannot be said that the universe expanded at the speed of light for multiple reasons:

one being the universe didn't expand, it is currently expanding. It never stopped, we can measure it right now if we wanted to and if we were rich enough. I had to specify that first because if I didn't I would be allowing you to be misled.

two, being it entirely depends on which distance away from us (or Planck's constant, which was the very beginning of the very beginning, meaning it is currently impossible for us to measure anything before it occurred because it was the beginning of time as we know it) and at what point in time you are measuring. If we measured a galaxy next to us right now, it would not be expanding away from us at the speed of light because the distance between us is way smaller, but if we were to measure a galaxy on the other-side of the universe it would most likely be expanding away from us past the speed of light because the distance is *impossible to comprehend*. Keep in mind speed is just distance/time, and so is unfortunately not very helpful in this specific example... i'm actually pretty unwell rn so if this explanation makes absolutely zero sense, I sincerely apologize, I tried my best and if you have further questions I will try my best again to clarify.

[removed]

I don't quite agree, and I would say the premise for the question is false. Cars don't require much power, unless you're going very fast or hauling something heavy up a hill (fast). Farming equipment don't need the same kind of speed. A tractor probably actually needs more power than a car to do what it needs to do

Torque is the actual power of the engine. Horsepower is the rate at which it is produced. Farm equipment is slow, so with a relatively "weak", low Horsepower, high torque engine, you can get a lot of work done. Heavy flywheel, low revs, almost always diesel, which are big heavy engines with a lot of torque. The right gearbox and the job's done. Nobody's winning any races in a tractor but it can certainly pull a load.

Ha ha, I'd rather not.

I remember at my first job, the network stack of Win95 rev A would sometimes crap itself, permanently. We had to reinstall Windows on a few computers.

USB printing is still a mess. Windows still defaults to the ancient LPT1 port when it doesn't know what to do, and the USB "port" for printing is a hack.

And don't get me started on network "WSD" ports.

And everything is totally opaque, so when something goes wrong, you can't inspect, troubleshoot or fix the actual issue. Remove, reinstall, pray...

Two fold: Even though you can’t digest lactose and turn it into energy or fat stores, the bacteria living in your colon can and break those carbon chemical bonds. This provides energy to the bacteria those causes that carbon to bond with oxygen and form CO2. The excess CO2 causes pain, flatulence and bloating. Second, sugar is osmotically active meaning that is draws water to itself, causing diarrhea.

Therefore, Lactose intolerance commonly leads to a combination of pain, bloating, flatulence and diarrhea.

That's 90% of the sound difference. The rest comes down to cylinder head design, camshaft lobe shape/timing, and the obvious one, exhaust. Which is why two different flat plane engines, with the same displacement, even with identical exhausts, will still sound very different. But cross vs flat plane is definitely the biggest defining factor.

Only a select few materials are fissile, and then, only if they exist in sufficient purity. ^235 U and ^239 Pu are the most common fissile isotopes used in fission weapon cores. To detonate a fission core, usually the core is contained within an outer shell of conventional high explosive specifically shaped into explosive lenses (based on the positions of the detonators and speed of propagation of the detonation wavefront through the explosive). The multiple simultaneous explosions occurring within these explosive lenses create a symmetrical shockwave which acts to evenly implode the fissile material core, rapidly increasing its density and initiating the prompt-critical nuclear chain reaction in as many locations as possible, simultaneously. Neutrons released by every individual fission event at the atomic level may strike the nuclei of nearby fissile atoms, and there is a certain probability that this causes that nucleus to undergo fission itself, releasing more neutrons and thus propagating the chain reaction. While all this is happening, there are two things that are working to arrest the chain reaction: one is that the primary fissile core material is fissioning into child materials which have a much lesser (or even negligible) probability of further fission when struck by the reaction neutrons. Essentially, decay products are being created which are radioactive, but not fissile, so no further chain reaction is possible. The second thing is that the incredible energy release associated with the fissioning core is actively working to blow that core apart, both reducing it below the critical density first established by the conventional explosive trigger, and physically dispersing it and so reducing the probability of neutron collisions which result in fission. A goal of nuclear weapon design is to maintain supercritical density for as long as possible in order to maximize fission yield, but 100% fission of the core is not attainable. Some portion is always just blown apart to become a contribution to the radioactive fallout instead of actively contributing to the destructive yield.

They go at pretty slow speeds so the engines are built around high torque and long term reliability

At low speeds, power scales linearly with speed so pulling a plow that takes 1 ton of force at 10 mph requires half as much power as pulling the same plow at 20 mph. If you're only ever going to pull that plow at 10 mph you don't need a huge amount of power, lots of farming equipment doesn't work if you pull it too fast.

Cars and trucks need to get up to highway speeds over a relatively short distance, this is really why we put 100+ horse power in everything these days. You only need about 30 hp to cruise on the highway but doing 30-70 on a short onramp to get up to a safe speed requires quite a lot more power.

First time on the internet huh?

Because speed is not needed as it is in a car for example, gearing between turns of the engine and rotation of the wheels or equipment can be very low.

[deleted]

How close each nuclei is to each other matters. The neutrons get emitted randomly and if everything is packed together tightly that doesn't matter because no matter where they go they're going to hit another fissile nucleus. Once the reaction begins to emit energy it's going to push that core apart and now some of the nuclei being emitted are going to miss a fissile nucleus and just go away into the surrounding environment. Eventually you also convert enough fissile nuclei to non-fissile and they might just absorb the neutron taking it out of the reaction without a new fission. But that won't matter for a bomb, it becomes more of an issue in reactors.

Neutrons only trigger more decay when they hit the right kinds of atoms at the right speed. This is reasonably likely when you have a dense clump of enriched uranium. Once that clump starts exploding, it gets way less dense. Neutrons created then miss the other fissile atoms and just fly off, failing to continue the reaction

During the explosion, each fission event causes >1 additional fission events. Let's say it causes 1.1 more.

As a rough rule of thumb, if something is increasing by X% per step, it doubles in 70/X steps. So in this case, at a 10% increase per step, it doubles every 7. And since each step here takes a tiny, tiny fraction of a second, this doubling can happen many, many times within a slightly less tiny fraction of a second. A rough estimate for the step time here is about 10 nanoseconds (that's 1/100 million of a second), so you're doubling in less than 100 ns, you've doubled more than ten times within 1000 ns = 1 microsecond, and you've doubled more than a hundred times within 10000 ns = 10 microsecond. (It turns out that you don't actually get this far, for reasons we'll see in a second.)

If you naively continue this process) you've doubled more than a thousand times within 100 microsecond (= 0.1 millisecond). 1000 doublings is 2^1000 = 10^300 or so. Since there aren't even 10^300 atoms in the entire Universe, this obviously can't be the case. In fact, even 2^100 = 10^30 or so is beyond the number of atoms in a supercritical chunk of normal nuclear materials.

But nothing about our math is wrong here. Instead, something must be wrong with our assumption that this process continues the way we've modeled it here. And the reason it doesn't - and hence the answer to your question - is that the developing nuclear blast starts to split its fuel apart. To make it explode in the first place, you needed to compress the fuel into a small area, so that the neutrons emitted by each fission event can be captured by other atoms of your fuel. Once the fuel isn't compressed into a small area, the number of fission events caused by each fission event (our 1.1 above) goes down, and we can no longer model the explosion's progress as a raw exponential curve. Once it falls below 1, the reaction starts to slow, and if it's much below 1, it slows down quickly.

In practice, once it is below 1 in a nuclear explosion, you've already got a very violent explosion blasting the fuel apart. So it very quickly drops far below 1, and any energy release past that point isn't caused by the initial chain reaction. This isn't quite the end of the the energy release, since the decay products from the initial chain reaction are also exceptionally radioactive and themselves quickly decay, but even those quick decays are minor-ish contributors to a nuclear explosion because their time frames are much longer than the duration of a nuclear blast (usually, anyway).