Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

Vast-Combination4046 t1_ja7vak1 wrote

Horsepower is a fictional number. It's an equation using Torque and RPM to determine horsepower. People have said "horsepower is how fast the car hits the wall torque is how far you move the wall" because torque is the actual force you apply to the work you are doing. Since it doesn't matter how fast you move your goal is the most amount of torque at a low rpm.

1

Ansuz07 t1_ja7ug3j wrote

In biology, an organ is defined as a collection of tissues that structurally form a functional unit specialized to perform a particular function.

Skin meets this definition quite nicely. It is a collection of tissues that form a very discernable structure and fulfill the purpose of providing a protective barrier for our internal organs.

80

druppolo t1_ja7u7p9 wrote

Main factors:

1 Engine noise: you want the engines to be away from the people. Having them in the tail is a good solution.

2 Structural weight: above a certain size, you gain a lot by optimizing the aircraft structural load. Engines and fuel are heavy. Having fuel and engines strapped to the wings means they are directly supported in flight. On the contrary, if you put the engine in the tail, the wing has to support the fuselage that then supports the engine, which asks for more structure, so more weight.

Conclusion: as long as the plane is small enough, tail engines are more silent and not so heavy. On bigger planes wing engines allow for a lighter structure, and due to dimensions, noise-wise they are still far enough from people.

Perks: wing engine are closer to ground and this saves a lot of maintenance time, and increases maintenance quality (the more comfortable is the technician, the better he can check things)

-source: I’m an aircraft mechanic (but not the designer, so take this with a bit of salt, design is not my job, shouldn’t be my job, damn I hate when I have to decide where to put the engines myself, that’s a red flag for the company)

2

blipsman t1_ja7u65h wrote

The idea that you have those at top of military and top of defense contractors working to keep their influence high… military demanding ever increasing budgets and new weapons, vehicles, etc. while the defense contractors making them lobby Congress to help the cause.

And you’ll often see high ranking military or elected officials go to work for defense contractors as lobbyists or other high paid positions when they want higher income, so their work while in government is often looking forward to personal enrichment by doing favors vs. actual best interests of military/country.

4

Flapflapimabird t1_ja7spjq wrote

Uhh. There’s a little bit more going on but the guy who had the magnetic flywheel built a castle with it and my grade 9 science teacher did not.

Like, go see what madebyoneman on YouTube is up to. He’s a good guy. Or VinnyStVincent.

Go read the pamphlets that Ed released about magnetic energy, seems to be right up your alley.

Actually. Go and look at copper mining in the Baltic region at the turn of the century and look at their electrical systems that they used because they’re pretty much where Ed got his idea being from Latvia and all.

Where do you think Tesla got his ideas from? It’s like he was born with this preconceived notion of electricity but that’s obviously not true.

1

StillLearning12358 t1_ja7rjjw wrote

I used to order for a store in the Midwest. While we were not as big as target or Walmart, we had stores in 9 states so we had some buying power.

At the store level, I'd get vendors coming to talk to me with certain deals too. Price per unit would come down the more we bought.

For instance, string cheese may be 2/each cost to store if I bought 10 cases, but 1.50 if I bought 20 cases.

I regularly looked at how many cases I could sell in like 2 months and order that many so we could bank the extra cash for the store.

Stores work on earning the next penny so those .50 cents would add up

6

Many_Television8895 t1_ja7r6pb wrote

The criteria comes down to effective aggression e.g consistently landing punches not just throwing desperate haymakers which is mostly what Paul threw in this fight

ring control e.g which fighter is controlling what is happening and enforcing their style

Defence is also a factor e.g blocking, slipping, parrying strikes

Then there is significant strikes throwing lots of punches which aren’t hitting the target isn’t scored the same as landing flush hard shots

Also Paul didn’t land more shots than Fury he landed a higher percentage of the shots he threw but he attempted about half the amount of strikes that Fury did Paul landed 49 strikes from 157 thrown whereas Fury landed 88 from 302 strikes

Fury landed the more significant shots, was controlling the fight from start to finish and was doing a better job of deflecting shots so very few of what Paul threw landed clean

8

Puzzleheaded-Fan-208 t1_ja7qi9i wrote

It is a combination of a military "class" whose careers advance by having conflict, and the manufacturers and various others who profit from conflict. These groups will presumably combine to lead the people of a country in to wars that serve mainly to benefit those groups.

This, of course, lets the people of the country you are discussing off the hook for the actions of their government, which is by and large HOOOOOOOOOOORSE SHIT. People love wars, until they decide they were against it all along, which always happens after there is not the quick victory they thought would happen.

Also, FUN FACT- This was regarded as some kind of peacenick pronouncement against war when Eisenhower warned against it. This is not so, what Ike objected to was large scale, conventional wars. He was the man whose administration oversaw many of the coups of the cold war, and set policies that would see the 3rd world in flames for decades. He just did not want to use american soldiers and tanks to do it.

7

Flair_Helper t1_ja7q7s3 wrote

Please read this entire message

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

  • ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

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_ja7q7cz wrote

Please read this entire message


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

  • ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.


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

1

Pocok5 t1_ja7prep wrote

> a plastic board covered in fibreglass

The board is the fiberglass+resin. Usually. That is called FR-4. Sometimes you see ultra cheap boards that use paper and resin (FR-2) substrate. On top of that is one or two layers of copper foil, glued down, then after etching the traces it is coated with UV setting liquid plastic called solder resist.

1

throwawaychilder t1_ja7phb2 wrote

The military industrial complex is a reference to the entirety of the corporations and their industrial factories they created to make weapons of war and destruction and protective gear and deterrents or vehicles to drive and deliver those weapons and gear.

It refers to the buildings the work force and the people that profit, even, technically from selling weapons and protective gear related to fighting and war.

4

cbeebout t1_ja7p6iw wrote

I remember learning in Classical Physics in college that the horsepower to drive a car on a flat surface was directly proportional to the drag of the vehicle as well as the cube of the speed.

Therefore, if it took say 30hp to drive a minivan down the interstate at 50mph to then triple the speed to 150mph would require (150mph/50mph) * * 3 times more horsepower or… 3 * * 3. 3 cubed is (3 * 3 * 3=)27 times more horsepower. 30 x 27 = 810hp. No stock minivan has 810 hp so no stock minivan can reach 150mph.

A Ferrari, however, might have half the drag of the minivan and would require only 15hp to drive down the interstate at 50mph. 15 x 27 = 405hp, so only 405hp would be required for the Ferrari to maintain 150mph, which many Ferraris can produce.

1

ThePurpleDuckling t1_ja7p67u wrote

You need to find out what type of credit pull they are going to do. If it’s a soft pull it won’t hurt your credit (maybe a few points temporarily). If it’s a hard pill it’ll knock you down maybe 30-40 points for a few months.

You’ll also want to ask the company which credit bureaus they report on time payments to. Phrase it that way so they view the question positively. If they do report on time payments, then co signing will actually help your credit score so long as your sibling makes payments. On the reverse, it would impact your score if they miss payments by more than 30 days.

Experian has a free tool called Experian Boost. It has a credit simulator where you can see a good idea of what some of these things will do to your score.

3