I was about to make the exact same post.
I disliked pineapple on pizza for the longest time because it is usually paired with the worst of all the meat options–canadian bacon. Then I tried a bacon/pineapple/jalapeno pizza, and my mind was instantly changed.
this is especially good combo if eating in an average to below average chain pizza imo. Will never get that in a place with actual good pizza, but works well for the mass chains.
Of like the 4 pizza shops I’ve settled on ordering from in the area only one does a pineapple pie. Even though I’m admittedly a pizza snob, I’m not opposed to having pineapple (or whatever you want really) on your pizza. The consistently #1 rated pizza place in the country has clams for their signature pie so pineapple isn’t really anything wild IMO.
It took me years to try one of the pizza places that made the list we do order from. The owner use to be a bartender we were regulars at and he was the biggest dick to you if you weren’t an attractive woman. So when he opened his own shop I said I was never going to try it. One of my buddies ended up ordering one Sunday for football and got dam it was amazing. I really really wanted to hate it but you can’t hate greatness. /coolstorybro.
If the physicists are confident, it looks like there’s an opportunity to make a pile of money here. Not particle collider money, but still.
Ice yachts were the fastest vehicle known before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Either way they were very fast.
I’ve always lived in the desert. No water, no ice, no boats. (Ok, not really. Arizona had most boats per capita at one time iirc.)
Seems like even early 20th century they could’ve measured the speed pretty accurately if they could sustain it long enough. Afaict they could measure both time and distance within a few percent no problem.
Today, this prop-car thing seems easy to verify. Google says anemometer accuracy is +/- 1mph. Not that expensive. You could buy a bunch and place them along a course. Vehicle speed should be easy to measure. Maybe even just use the speedometer on a pace car or a bicycle speedometer or a gps-based phone app. Not that accurate but good enough if they are really approaching 3x windspeed. And from what Chris said, they’ve done something like this already. Did they mess it up?
The key is downwind vs. tacking against the wind. Everyone admits you can go faster than the wind if you tack into it.
I’m coming around, but I don’t find this part quite precise. The wheels aren’t doing work on the propeller, they’re doing work, via the propeller, on the air that flows through the propeller. So the question is how fast the air moves out of the propeller vs how fast the vehicle is moving. More specifically, after doing some algebra, I think it has to be the case that the propeller can move enough air to create enough thrust to move itself forward while also keeping its exhaust velocity below its land speed. That’s trivially impossible without wind (because the air starts out with velocity equal to ground speed), but with wind I don’t immediately see a reason that can’t happen?
The collapse of local news is really really really bad.
https://twitter.com/amlwhere/status/1407019123025055757?s=21
Wind direction is easy too. And this thing doesn’t even have a real sail so tacking wouldn’t do much, I don’t think. Seems like this bet has to have a clear winner.
I started out thinking about it like this, but I think there’s a lot extraneous here. It seems simpler to me to work from the reference frame of the car and assume that it’s going at the same speed as the wind. Then if you hook the wheels up to the propeller and assume all the work done by the ground on the wheels flows through to the propeller, try to prove that the propeller generates less force than the ground. Ultimately I ended up with the equation:
V_ground * F_ground = thrust * V_exhaust
or
net force = thrust * (1 - V_exhaust / V_ground)
Again, all from the car’s PoV.
I heard a 97 year old guy ate an apple and three weeks later he just keeled over and died. Don’t try to force your death fruit on me.
For lunch every day, former SCOTUS David Souter used to eat a yogurt and an apple, core included.
Just wait for the wind to totally stop and see if the car goes anywhere.
That seems tricky. At the moment you hook up the propeller, the car accelerates and the reference frame is non inertial. Now the laws of motion are less simple and you have to worry about “fictitious” forces. For me, intuition becomes entirely unreliable.
Some comments (sorry if they’re off, I’m old and rusty):
Your use of thrust and exhaust suggests you’re thinking of it like a rocket. The first equation is an energy (power) balance, which may be ok under your assumptions but I’m not sure what the variables represent.
The second equation assumes just two forces are acting on the car so that net force= thrust - F_ground. But if the car speeds up when the prop is hooked up, the driver will feel the wind in her face and feel that some (fictitious) force is pushing her backward. If the car slows, she’ll feel the wind at her back and a force (fictitious) pushing her forward. The extra forces in this frame of reference don’t seem to be accounted for.
My best friend’s sister recently retired from the Tribune. I haven’t kept up with her but she’s never been shy about afflicting the comfortable. Long ago, when she worked for Cox, the joke was “Cox, but no balls”.
Jalapenos (and probably other peppers though I hate banana/sport peppers on pizza)
bring a lot to a pineapple combo.
