qid stringclasses 147 values | q stringclasses 147 values | answer_1 stringlengths 0 3.33k | answer_2 stringlengths 0 6.88k | label stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | I won't beat /u/IsentropicFire for detail, so I'll go for brevity and sideways thinking: A jet engine is basically all turbocharger, and none of the rest of a car engine. | To summarize what's been said about turbos and superchargers so far: the more oxygen your can squeeze into a small space, the more fuel you can burn in that same space. More fuel equals more power. It's almost that simple. If there's not enough oxygen, the fuel doesn't combust completely. This is how some fire extinguishers do their job; blocking oxygen from combusting with the fuel. Same for a water hose, along with cooling everything down. When you burn something, you extract energy from it in the form of heat, which expands the stuff around it. How you *use* that energy is what the rest of your very interesting questions is about. Piston engines use the extra oxygen to fly higher and/or lift heavier loads. Early on, we just added more pistons to get more power, but this doesn't solve the altitude issue and adds more weight. Adding a turbocharger and/or supercharger was a weight tradeoff. The propeller must be capable of absorbing the energy produced by the engine and transferring it to the air. We solved that quite nicely in WW2 with forged aluminum props and an automatic variable pitch hub. The latter freed up the pilot's attention for shooting stuff. The German fighter planes had a manual pitch adjustment, which increased the pilot's workload. When jet engines came along, they were used for speed and altitude. Speed came in part because there was no big propeller in front of the engine that needed to be pushed through the air. Altitude came because going fast at altitude pushed more air into a small space. Then someone said, "But wait! There's more!" What if we built a tiny jet engine with the same power output as a piston engine, and used it to spin a big prop? Not all aircraft need to go as fast as military jets or fly as high, and the turboprop was born. The engine is much lighter than a comparable piston engine, and has a longer time between overhauls, so it can fly more often and/or for longer periods. Google "turboprop gearbox" and you'll see the main thing that makes turboprops possible. A propeller's tips cannot spin faster than the speed of sound or bad things will happen. The gearbox ensures the rpm's stay low enough to prevent that. It's a short mental walk to go from turboprop to turbofan, eh? Take a big jet engine, put in a secondary turbine at the butt end to capture a portion of the exhaust energy, send that energy through a nested shaft up to the front of the engine, and spin a big compressor section that pushed more of its air around the jet engine instead of through it like the normal compression section. Google "high bypass turbofan" and be amazed. The elegance of the high bypass turbofan is its simplicity; the speed of the bypass fan is not controlled by gearing, but by the design of the secondary turbine. This means less weight for the system. It's the perfect powerplant for commercial aircraft. Watch one start up and you'll hear the jet engine start first and see its exhaust, but that bypass fan is slowly spinning up. It's not mechanically attached to the axel that spins the jet engine core. It's a beautiful thing. BTW one constraint on this system is the surface speed of the *bearings* that hold the nested shafts apart. Airplanes are designed for a specific mission: going fast; carrying heavy stuff; landing on a short runway; flying very high; turning sharp; flying for a long time and over a really long distance; climbing fast; diving fast; being easy to fly. Maybe a few more. Google "Rutan Voyager circumnavigates the globe" to see one example of a plane built for one specific mission. A successful airplane design must accomplish several of these; i.e. it's not very useful to go as fast as possible if the design cannot land on a standard length runway. Aircraft design is entirely about the tradeoffs between all the mission requirements and physics. Start with a mission. Determine which powerplant comes the closest to serving that mission (you may need more than one). Take that power to weight engine and design an airframe around it. WW1 planes had few choices of powerplant, and the power to weight ratio was total shit by standards available just 10 years later. But take a low powered, heavy engine, and put two short wings around it and a short fuselage, and you get a really quick, sharp turning fighter plane. Add machine guns and go fight. About that altitude thing: if I can fly higher in my fighter plane than you can fly in your fighter plane, I can attack you from above and disappear back into the sky. Nah, nah, ne-nah, nah! Since a lack of oxygen is the constraint, we can either carry an oxygen bottle (adds weight, doesn't last very long, both bad things) or push more air into the small space where the fuel will ignite (good idea). So what are the constraints on pushing more air into a small space? What are the tradeoffs? Once you leave the ground, the constraints can be reduced to just three. They are weight, power, and drag. Of these, weight is dominant; increase the weight and drag goes up, so the power requirement goes up to overcome that drag, which takes more fuel, which may mean adding more fuel to reach the intended range, which adds more weight at takeoff and climb, which adds drag... You seeing the picture? An aerospace engineer that worked on the first cruise missiles told me this story: A junior engineer, working on some of the control electronics, chose to place his little box of important stuff on the front bulkhead, just behind the blowy up parts. A senior engineer ripped him a new one, because that half a pound of weight positioned that far from the center of lift of the wings would cause a load on the trim of the aircraft to maintain level flight, which would increase drag, which would decrease the range of the missile, which means the ship firing that missile would have to be closer to the target, which is a dumb thing to do. The sum of small mistakes in a design that flies is a bad thing to let happen, unless there is a mission parameter that requires it. Since you have a healthy curiosity, google "airplane design tradeoffs", open a beer, and enjoy the many rabbit holes available to you. If you're still curious after google, you can search for books on engineering different parts of an aircraft. One of my faves was a very large and expensive book that only covered the design of naval aircraft landing gear. That's a whole career for that author, and it was just about the rolly parts that are only needed when the plane is not flying. And only planes based on aircraft carriers; you wouldn't waste adding the weight on land based planes. Then, if you're still curious, visit EAA.org. Visit aircraftspruce.com. Your curiosity can evolve into a lifelong hobby in which you learn to fly and build your own airplane in your garage, or restore a vintage warbird, or just hang out with other curious aero-types.:-D | answer_1 |
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | Yes planes have both modes of forced induction, there was attempts to feed compressed gasses as well like NoS. Another induction system was one called a power recovery turbine, a great system that unfortunately never reached its full potential due to high levels of back pressure. There where many attempts at a twin charging system using both a turbo and super chargers. | I won't beat /u/IsentropicFire for detail, so I'll go for brevity and sideways thinking: A jet engine is basically all turbocharger, and none of the rest of a car engine. | answer_2 |
kg8jgu | Do planes have super-chargers and/or turbo-chargers like cars can? If not, why? I know nothing about planes beyond the simple rotary engine and IM curious about this. It seems like they are operating at such a speed and scale that these additions could be perfect additions as long as it was designed to not add more drag and weight than it's added worth. Even then, what if they flew at a slightly downward slope from a higher altitude? or compensate with a design generating more lift? How would they roughly impact speed and fuel efficiency? | About the efficiency: commercial jets try to operate just under transonic speeds (about mach 0.8 to 1.3) where drag rapidly increases as the airspeed rises, so it would most likely not be worth it for jets. Not that modern jets would need this for cryise flight anyway, as the highest thrust applied usually is at take-off and during climb. About the climbing and then continuously descending, as airplanes climb, their minimum speed and maximum speed come closer together, until they could theoretically hit the so-called ’coffin corner’. In reality they don’t fly at this altitude, but flying higher and then descending might require them to fly at such a high altitude that they can’t reach it. As the airplane descends, it would go back to altitudes where the air is thicker, which means that they both have to fly slower and experience more drag, so it’s probably more efficient to stay at cruising altitude longer. It also makes seperating airplanes a lot easier for air traffic controllers. A design which generates more lift might have good consequences, but also a surprisingly bad consequence. One of the consequences of lift are so-called wing tip vortices (there are a few clips where you can see them pretty clearly when an airplane flies through a cloud). These create drag and the more lift, the stronger the vortices. When an airplane is not accelerating up or down or turning, it’s theoretically producing the same amount of lift as it weighs. So a plane which produces more lift could carry more, but could also produce more drag making things worse. Now there are ways to make these vortices less powerful, like having a larger wing span, which can increase weight. So when they design a new airplane, they need to considering all these things and decide what they want to favor. | There are already lots of good answers but I'll add mine in too. Yes, planes can and are sometimes supercharged or turbocharged. Unlike with cars though you have better options than piston power, so it's not like this is gonna be the best producer of power. For smaller planes it makes sense to supe up the engine, but as you get bigger you'll start to use turbine power which gives more power and has lots of other benefits. Also just fyi, the word you meant to say in your post is radial engine, not rotary. A rotary engine is a wankel rotary engine, radial is the big circular engine your see on WW2 planes. | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Well, it actually doesn’t. No chord *wants* to resolve to any other particular chord - because chords aren’t sentient beings that have a mind of their own; it’s humans that have culturally engrained tastes and expectations of their own - and these obviously can vary quite a lot. For example, most of the music in existence (including most contemporary popular genres) don’t revolve around V-I cadences, and listeners of these kinds of music really don’t seem to mind; so I think it’d be an over generalization to say that any particular chord “wants” to resolve anywhere else. Music isn’t a universal language, so neither is music theory. However, that might not be the kind of answer you’re looking for. V-I motion (and similar sorts of tonal resolution) are obviously *very* historically important to the musical tradition of European Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, etc.), as well as related strains of music from Europe. In these styles of music, the sound of V going to I (especially scale degrees 7 and 4 resolving to 3 and 1) became a cornerstone of their musical vocabulary. If you’re lookin to understand this in more depth, I’d recommend checking out any tonal harmony textbook, or a history book about tonal harmony in Europe. | Many centuries ago, medieval Europeans decided they really liked half-step resolutions, especially when they went up. It became very much A Thing to approach resolutions with one voice moving a half step in one direction, and the other moving a whole step in the opposite direction, arriving at a perfect interval--which was, most importantly for our purposes, often an octave. So if we wanted to resolve to octave As, that meant either G#-A going up combined with B-A going down, or G-A going up combine with Bb-A going down. The former pattern, with the half step rising rather than the half step falling, was preferred for resolutions that were really meant to be final and complete. So then this B-G# major sixth expanding to the A-A octave made it into the Renaissance, and people started liking to have an independent, leapy bass voice below these cadential voices, and one place that a bass worked particularly well beneath the B-G# major sixth was on the E below it. This E could either leap up an octave to another E, or up a fourth/down a fifth to an A. Either way, you end up with an E major chord resolving to an A sonority of some kind. Eventually, upward half-step resolution combined with the root motion by descending fifth took hold as Another Thing, and there's our V-I. | answer_2 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's played through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | The more comprehensive and historically accurate is the one u/Zarlinosuke gave you: it's the result of a long process of cultural development of a specific melodic and harmonic language, the cumulative result of many small improvements and innovations that led to what we call nowadays the "tonal system", where the V chord (or V7) has a fundamental importance in harmonic motion. In general, many people just enjoyed the sound of that resolution when it was done skillfully, and it's left such a profound cultural mark that we still go back to it after so long. It's part of our heritage and our identity. But there's another answer, which is: ... *does it, really?* If you listen to a lot of contemporary pop, you'll more often hear the V go to the vi, or to the IV, or even to the ii. The traditional V-I resolution is only a common feature of music done by old farts like me, who still identify with Phil Collins and Air Supply, who like big transitions and ugly men with high voices belting out over digital synths. Nowadays, people tend to prefer chord loops that create this sort of trance-like repetition, where you get lost in the groove and just dig the vibe of it--so something like the i-v-iv-i of Dua Lipa's *Levitating*, or the iv-i-♭III-♭VII of the Weeknd's *Blinding Lights*, are much more appropriate. We wanna feel like the song's never gonna end. I mean, I'm exaggerating a little bit: you do hear V-I's once in a while today. However, that mantra that "V wants to go to I" is only repeated by braindead zombies who think we're still living in the 19th century, or who just mindlessly repeat what they've heard in school from some teacher who thinks everything that's been done after Coltrane's death is "garbage". V doesn't "want" to go anywhere, because it's *the musician* who wants it to go somewhere, and we, listeners, have certain expectations that may or may not be fulfilled. | answer_1 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's played through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | Fundamentally the V-I thing is just a distraction; it is better to ask why any melodic tendencies and specific melodic patterns exist at all. The answer to that question is relatively simple: because that's what people before you have done. Where it gets kind of complicated though is that then there's a set of people thinking that we should move away from that and enter into new territory. But many people out of this folk aren't aware *just how much* of their writing already uses ideas that were commonplace centuries ago, more or less. It's really hard to escape tendencies, because a lot of the times illogical musical phrases arise out of ignoring the tendencies and that's how you get lines that you're just not satisfied with. And then there's contemporary art music which, uh, at worst tried to be very hostile against existing tendencies so instead you got serialism, abstract pitch classes and such (specifically referring to Second Viennese School). | answer_1 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | One of my theory teachers liked to use the Harmonic/Overtone Series as part of the reason V wants to resolve to I. It also kind of relates to the jazz term "the V is the I." When you study the frequency of the waveform of a single note, you will find there are multiple frequencies resonating. If we play C2, which we call the fundamental tone, the first harmonic is C3 & the second harmonic is G3. The forth, fifth, & sixth harmonies of C2 are C4, E4, & G4. If we play a G2, we will have the harmonies of G3, D3, G4, B4, D4 as the loudest resonance frequencies. All of these D's & B's are leading tones for C. There are a whole host of other frequencies, some of the more known ones are more prevalent or more forward like the major triad. But this is all happening when playing one singular note. All of these resonant frequencies make up the timbre of the sound, with some resonances made louder or quieter depending on the medium (which instrument) the sound is playing through. So we hear a lot of V's resonance every time we play the I no matter which instrument it's played through, since it's only the 2nd harmonic. Then we play several leading tones of resonance when we play the V just playing the note & its resonances regardless if we're playing an actual triad on top. | Wow, very interesting history behind this in the other comments. My thoughts were that if you listen to popular music the V as the tension/far away, need to come home sound is very common and helps condition this. There is some basis to it as the 3rd of the 5 is the 7 which is only a half step down from the tonic combined with root movement of 5 to 1. | answer_1 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Fundamentally the V-I thing is just a distraction; it is better to ask why any melodic tendencies and specific melodic patterns exist at all. The answer to that question is relatively simple: because that's what people before you have done. Where it gets kind of complicated though is that then there's a set of people thinking that we should move away from that and enter into new territory. But many people out of this folk aren't aware *just how much* of their writing already uses ideas that were commonplace centuries ago, more or less. It's really hard to escape tendencies, because a lot of the times illogical musical phrases arise out of ignoring the tendencies and that's how you get lines that you're just not satisfied with. And then there's contemporary art music which, uh, at worst tried to be very hostile against existing tendencies so instead you got serialism, abstract pitch classes and such (specifically referring to Second Viennese School). | Well, it actually doesn’t. No chord *wants* to resolve to any other particular chord - because chords aren’t sentient beings that have a mind of their own; it’s humans that have culturally engrained tastes and expectations of their own - and these obviously can vary quite a lot. For example, most of the music in existence (including most contemporary popular genres) don’t revolve around V-I cadences, and listeners of these kinds of music really don’t seem to mind; so I think it’d be an over generalization to say that any particular chord “wants” to resolve anywhere else. Music isn’t a universal language, so neither is music theory. However, that might not be the kind of answer you’re looking for. V-I motion (and similar sorts of tonal resolution) are obviously *very* historically important to the musical tradition of European Classical music (Mozart, Haydn, etc.), as well as related strains of music from Europe. In these styles of music, the sound of V going to I (especially scale degrees 7 and 4 resolving to 3 and 1) became a cornerstone of their musical vocabulary. If you’re lookin to understand this in more depth, I’d recommend checking out any tonal harmony textbook, or a history book about tonal harmony in Europe. | answer_1 |
vbj5sg | WHY does V chord want to resolve at the I? Can anyone explain WHY the V chord wants to resolve to the tonic? I’m sure there are reason and I know my fellow Reddit kings and queens can school me on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am a theory noob | Wow, very interesting history behind this in the other comments. My thoughts were that if you listen to popular music the V as the tension/far away, need to come home sound is very common and helps condition this. There is some basis to it as the 3rd of the 5 is the 7 which is only a half step down from the tonic combined with root movement of 5 to 1. | The resolution relationship between root and dominant suggests to me a nature of the underlying fabric of the universe. The dominant can be considered a "quantized" measure from the root, as are the other notes of any given scale. In Western 12-step, the essential unit from which all other relationships are derived is the half-step. These repeating mathematical relationships are mirrored in the interactions of particle physics, the word "quantum" is applied to the fixed energies that guide the behavior in the subatomic realm, i.e., quantum physics. And much like a Mandelbrot set, the relationships in the tiny quantum world are reflected in the larger Newtonian world. The universe is indeed a symphony of unimaginable complexity, and I think of music as our window, our *primer*, if you will, for understanding not only the stuff of physics, but our own emotional relationships, as well. | answer_2 |
so4j1u | Explain like I'm five years old : If we never manage to create a true absolute zero, how do we know that it sit exactly at -273.15 °c instead of ,uh, -273.69 or something else? | You can think of temperature as the average speed/kinetic energy of each molecule in a gas, just like how you can’t be moving negative 1 miles/hour, absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which these molecules come to a full stop. If they were moving “backwards” it’s still movement, and therefore higher than absolute zero. It’s just how absolute values work, you can’t move -3 feet, can’t throw -1 balls, and gas molecules can’t do any less than stay still. I think the reason why this can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around is because they don’t realize that cold is just the absence of heat, LITERALLY, it’s not some dumbing down of a more complex subject, you can never “add cold” to something only take away heat and at some point (0 kelvin) there’s just no more heat to be taken away, and is why we can only approach absolute zero, but never get there. | In a word: math. It is possible to calculate absolute zero using several gas laws, namely the ideal gas law, PV = nRT. If you rearrange the ideal gas law as a linear equation as you would use on a graph, you can graph temperature against either volume or pressure. Since absolute zero is the temperature at which no particle motion occurs, pressure and volume are both zero at absolute zero. Thus, no matter which of those two graph options you use, the line denoted by the ideal gas law intersects the temperature axis (where pressure and volume = 0) at -273.15°C. Therefore, absolute zero, the temperature at which no particle motion occurs (in theory), is -273.15°C. | answer_1 |
so4j1u | Explain like I'm five years old : If we never manage to create a true absolute zero, how do we know that it sit exactly at -273.15 °c instead of ,uh, -273.69 or something else? | It’s the same reason we can know the speed of light, even though we can’t reach it. It falls out of the math because it’s a fundamental feature of the universe we live in. | You can think of temperature as the average speed/kinetic energy of each molecule in a gas, just like how you can’t be moving negative 1 miles/hour, absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which these molecules come to a full stop. If they were moving “backwards” it’s still movement, and therefore higher than absolute zero. It’s just how absolute values work, you can’t move -3 feet, can’t throw -1 balls, and gas molecules can’t do any less than stay still. I think the reason why this can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around is because they don’t realize that cold is just the absence of heat, LITERALLY, it’s not some dumbing down of a more complex subject, you can never “add cold” to something only take away heat and at some point (0 kelvin) there’s just no more heat to be taken away, and is why we can only approach absolute zero, but never get there. | answer_2 |
9496212 | Navigation, highlight current page <sep> I've got a parent layout and derived from that child sites. The parent layout has a navigation, each navigation point represents one child site. How do i highlight in the parent layout the currently viewed child site? How shall the if look like? | First set a variable in Template its better redable. <code>{% set page = app.request.get('_route') %} <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link {% if page == 'welcome' %}active{% endif %}" href="{{ path('welcome') }}">Home <span class="sr-only">(current)</span></a> </li> </code> | Here's what I did: <code><a href='{{ path( 'products' ) }}'{% if app.request.attributes.get( '_route' ) starts with 'products' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Products</a> <ul> <li><a href='{{ path( 'products_product1' ) }}'{% if app.request.attributes.get( '_route' ) == 'products_product1' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Product 1</a></li> <li><a href='{{ path( 'products_product2' ) }}'{% if app.request.attributes.get( '_route' ) == 'products_product2' %} class='active'{% endif %}>Product 2</a></li> </ul> </code> | answer_1 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | It kind of depends how you want your chili to come out. If you want intact perfectly cooked individual beans I would just add them nearer the end. If you want your beans to slightly break down and meld into the sauce add them earlier. Personally I enjoy a chili where the beans break down a bit and thicken the sauce if I'm using beans but it's personal preference. | Never undercook the beans regardless. If they end up under cooked, it pretty much ruins the whole dish. Over cooked, really no big deal in chili. Specially if the second cook is in chili, beans tend not to suck up too much water when the solution is acidic so they won't get much in there. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | From my experience I would recommend pre-cooking the beans and if you feel like sweating it, do your best to stop at al dente. Let cool and then use as you would the canned beans. Sometimes when I cooked straight from dry it turned out fine, and sometimes they never seemed to finish cooking. | Canned beans are fully cooked. If you want to recreate a recipe that calls for fully cooked bean, fully cook your dried beans. If you want to increase the flavor mingling of the beans and chili, without having exploded soft beans, you can either mix your fully cooked beans with the chili and let them marinate together overnight in the fridge, which makes fat removal easy, or you can stop your beans just before they are fully done and simmer together until the beans are perfect. If you stop your beans at just done, you need to be sure that the texture of your beans is pretty darn close to what you want, because acid environments interfere with softening and lost os chili recipes for some reason include acid tomatoes. Background. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | It would depend on the cook time of the final product to me. If you are simmering it for hours I might leave them slightly underdone. Canned beans are precooked. Nothing is worse than undercooked beans. | If you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will prevent the beans from getting mushy. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | It would depend on the cook time of the final product to me. If you are simmering it for hours I might leave them slightly underdone. Canned beans are precooked. Nothing is worse than undercooked beans. | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can also be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that gets broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issues). | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | From my experience I would recommend pre-cooking the beans and if you feel like sweating it, do your best to stop at al dente. Let cool and then use as you would the canned beans. Sometimes when I cooked straight from dry it turned out fine, and sometimes they never seemed to finish cooking. | If you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will prevent the beans from getting mushy. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Are you using a pressure cooker? I usually add the cooked dry beans last and cook on high pressure for a few more minutes. | If you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will prevent the beans from getting mushy. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Its not pasta, its beans. It's mostly fiber. So they're difficult to over cook in the first place and undercooking them is like bitimg rocks. | If you get some calcium chloride from the canning section of the grocery store it will prevent the beans from getting mushy. It's what canned beans have in them. It's just a type of salt and totally fine. | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | Whilst we're on the subject of beans, is I possible to over soak them? Last night I set some beans soaking for tonight's dinner, I wasn't really thinking properly and read 12 hr as 24 hrs. Will they be alright? | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can also be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that gets broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issues). | answer_2 |
az9mmk | Should I undercook dried black beans if they will be cooked again when added to a recipe that calls for canned beans? I'm making a chili recipe that calls for canned black beans, however, I would like to start with dried black beans. Since canned beans are fully cooked, should I fully cook the dried beans first? Or should I undercook the dried beans so the 20 minutes of cooking that the chili requires completes the cooking? Or - another idea - fully cook the dried beans, but add them at the end of making chili rather than the beginning? | The trick is to undercook the onions. Everybody is going to get to know each other in the pot. | Fully cook the beans. It's very difficult to overcook beans. Any additional cooking they get in the chili won't make a difference. Undercooked beans can also be mildly toxic. Beans naturally contain a toxin that gets broken down during cooking. How much depends on the bean variety. It's the reason you shouldn't eat a lot of raw green beans (though I eat them raw all the time without issues). | answer_2 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | Haitian Creole keeps the French definite article in many words borrowed from French, so for example "la lune" (the moon) turns into the single word "lalin" in Haitian Creole. So I can at least say that the phenomenon is not specific to Arabic, although IIRC Arabic uses definite articles in more situations than French or English would. On the hand, quickly searching for Arabic loanwords in both Hindi and Farsi (both borrowed lots of Arabic vocabulary) suggests that the definite article does get dropped. Even within Europe it appears that Italian generally omitted the article when borrowing Arabic words, which is why the Italian word for sugar is "zucchero" (this got borrowed into French and then English). This Arabic-> Italian -> French -> English route is also why we call the cloth material "cotton" and not "alcotton". Sorry that I couldn't address the main question... | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | In most languages articles - even fully segmentable ones like in English or for the most part Spanish - really don't exist as separate phonological words. Obviously they're still syntactically separate, but phonologically the article is acting as a kind of half-word called a clitic. Borrowing tends to happen at the phonological level, not the syntactic level. English is a little weird in that it tends to borrow syntax as well, which is why we have both the words stimulus and stimuli. But even we don't go for the whole shebang, which is why we don't have stimulum, stimulo, stimulorum, etc. So Spanish and Portuguese got a bunch of Arabic words but borrowed them phonetically, not morphosyntactically. The same happened with a number of languages they colonized, like the number of languages that have lamesa or lamexa as their word for table. | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
ge5qwc | Why were Arabic borrowings so commonly taken with the definite article still attached? In the Ibero-Romance languages especially, it seems that more often than not, Arabic loan words were borrowed with some form of the Arabic definite article still attached. Most commonly this is seen in words starting with /al/ as in ‘alfombra’ or ‘alquimia’ but it’s also seen in words where the /l/ assimilated to a sun-letter like in words like ‘azeite’ and ‘açúcar.’ Why exactly was the definite article left attached for these words? Is there something about Arabic that might necessitate it’s usage more frequently than it would be seen in these other languages, thus creating the notion that it is a part of the word being borrowed? Also, if some type of confusion like that is the cause, does this speak to a lack of Arabic fluency in Iberian romance speakers during the time of Arabic rule since (from my very limited perspective) this would presumably be a fairly basic feature of Arabic morphology? Are there other languages that have borrowed heavily from Arabic that also maintain the article at the start of their words? | That’s only older loanwords though. Recent loanwords from Arabic don’t have any definite article. | Hello! Thank you for posting your question to /r/asklinguistics. Please remember to flair your post. This is a reminder to ensure your recent submission follows all of our rules, which are visible in the sidebar. If it doesn't, your submission may be removed! ___ All top-level replies to this post must be academic and sourced where possible. Lay speculation, pop-linguistics, and comments that are not adequately sourced will be removed. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/asklinguistics) if you have any questions or concerns.* | answer_1 |
k1oiq3 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't you boil milk in a kettle? I've burnt out my kettle attempting this. My thinking was that milk is just thicker water. I thought it would jusy take longer to boil. I'm in hot water (pun intended) with the wife. | In addition to what everybody else is saying... how are you supposed to clean the kettle? | Kettles aren't well mixed vessels, so you have a single heating element at the bottom where you'll have a hot zone. This isn't a problem when the only thing you're heating is water molecules, but is a problem when you try to heat something which contains fats and proteins. You're going to end up burning anything near the heating element. Also, depending on the kettle in question and how it functions, it may put too much thermal energy in to heat milk to the desired temperature even if you did stir it. I deal with similar issues on a chemical plant, but we have control systems that aim for setpoints, so you wouldn't see the same issue. Likewise, we heat aqueous protein solutions in big tanks, but if you don't fill it up over the minimum stir volume, you won't mix the tank as it heats up and you'll end up with burnt product around the heating elements. TLDR: heating liquids introduces a certain amount of mixing, but not enough to prevent hot zones around the element in the kettle where the fat and protein in the milk will burn. | answer_1 |
k1oiq3 | Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't you boil milk in a kettle? I've burnt out my kettle attempting this. My thinking was that milk is just thicker water. I thought it would jusy take longer to boil. I'm in hot water (pun intended) with the wife. | The milk fat burn on the heating element. You should steam milk. Or heat a pan up water and put the milk in a vessel that doesn't touch the bottom of the pan. | Kettles aren't well mixed vessels, so you have a single heating element at the bottom where you'll have a hot zone. This isn't a problem when the only thing you're heating is water molecules, but is a problem when you try to heat something which contains fats and proteins. You're going to end up burning anything near the heating element. Also, depending on the kettle in question and how it functions, it may put too much thermal energy in to heat milk to the desired temperature even if you did stir it. I deal with similar issues on a chemical plant, but we have control systems that aim for setpoints, so you wouldn't see the same issue. Likewise, we heat aqueous protein solutions in big tanks, but if you don't fill it up over the minimum stir volume, you won't mix the tank as it heats up and you'll end up with burnt product around the heating elements. TLDR: heating liquids introduces a certain amount of mixing, but not enough to prevent hot zones around the element in the kettle where the fat and protein in the milk will burn. | answer_2 |
74485 | Why do speedometers (in the US, at least) go so high? <sep> Typically one doesn't drive much faster than 80 MPH. Even in an emergency passing situation, it would be extremely rare to drive more than 100 MPH. In fact, as far as I know many cars have governors built into the engines that prevent them from going much faster. Yet in the United States, most cars made in the last 20 years have speedometers that go up to 120 or 140 MPH. Why? It seems to me like it might encourage people to drive faster. Or does it make the car "seem" faster if normal cruising speed is a smaller percentage of implied max speed? | Actually, the US is one of the few places to have enforced a limit on the maximum speed shown on a speedometer (reportedly to stop people trying to "speed test" their vehicles). For vehicles produced from 1979 to 1981, you'd only see vehicles showing up to 85mph: *The same law dictated the highlight at 55mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Speedometers As others have mentioned, some countries require a speedo to show the maximum speed a vehicle is capable of (or have no / much higher speed limits), in other cases the manufacturer chooses to (possibly for marketing purposes) display higher values. For example, check out the speedo from a Suzuki Hayabusa: Then we have a typical BMW car speedo, where most of their vehicles are limited to 155mph, the speedometers generally read up to 160mph (even on the models that don't produce enough power to ever achieve that speed): From a UX perspective, it's probably better to provide a display (a gauge in this case) capable of showing all the possible values. The use case for this in terms of speed could be: Differing local restrictions (driving to other states or different countries). Use off the public highway (track days, testing, racing). Changes to vehicle parameters (more power, improved aerodynamics) either during production or after market. The downside (of a gauge) is that the wider the range you attempt to cater for, the less readable it is and it becomes more difficult to determine your exact speed (as the needle is raised, perspective can affect "read" speed). Digital displays make it more difficult to read changing values / assess rate of change, but you only need to consider the appropriate number of digits (tens, hundreds, thousands etc.) - a three digit display should cater for most cars, though owners of vehicles incapable of 100mph/kmh might question why their speedos go so high too. :D | Interesting question. Looking around online, it seems to be a combination of marketing (makes the consumer think the engine is powerful) and manufacturing efficiency (can use the same speedometer in faster cars as well as minivans). http://mentalfloss.com/article/59478/why-do-car-speedometers-list-speeds-are-way-over-legal-limit | answer_1 |
7g6t1v | My flour Tortillas never bubble and always go brittle The recipe I've been using is: 3 cups flour 1/3 cup Lard 1 1/2 cup water (hot) 1 tsp Baking Powder I have adjusted as many of the variables as I can and my tortillas always just sit in the pan flat as a board and come out brittle and dry. I've tried using more and less water/flower/baking powder/lard I've tried kneading from 5 minutes to 20, letting them rest from 10 minutes to 40, used every single pan I could in my kitchen, even bought a brand new cast iron skillet (which I have taken the proper steps to prepare) to attempt them with. Used everything from med-low all the way to the hottest my stovetop will go. I have also rolled them extremely thin and also relatively thick and still the same result I've adjusted the time to leave them in the pan to cook, I always rest them in a tea towel immediately as they come out of the pan and they just never seem to work. I've run out of ideas. I have also swapped the lard out for butter and multiple different oils. I need help :( | 1.) use a scale 2.) if that doesn't work, use a food processor | Have you tried using cold water and cold lard instead? There's no yeast to be concerned about, so it's fine to do. It was tested on Serious Eats, apparently it makes the tortilla more tender (just like with a flaky pastry). And make sure you don't overcook it! 25-30 seconds on medium high heat should be enough. (My grandma says to brush oil into the top before flipping it over to keep it moist, just like with roti, but idk if that actually makes a difference for either.) Also, is your baking powder old? If you stir a 1/2 tsp into a cup of hot water, does it fizz? By the way...where's the salt in your recipe? Try adding a teaspoon - it won't affect the texture, so that's just a side note. | answer_2 |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | It gets written to the Console log on the device. You can read it in the "Organizer" within Xcode when your device is connected. | The text is logged. You can view the logs in xcode via the (almost-invisible) disclosure triangle in the Devices window as described in another answer. You can also access the logs in a more usable view (including filtering) by opening Console.app on your connected Mac and selecting the device on the left. There will be some overhead with logging, but considering the volume of logging that's going on all the time in recent versions of iOS, unless you're generating an awful lot of output (or spending time generating the messages), it's unlikely to be significant. | answer_2 |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | Your device will continue logging even when it's not connected to your mac. To see the logs, you need to open Xcode, click the 'Window' menu item, and then 'Organizer'. Then select your device and then select the 'Device Logs' tab. For some reason (for me at least) viewing the logs seems flaky, so if nothing shows up, you may need to completely quit Xcode and restart it. | It gets written to the Console log on the device. You can read it in the "Organizer" within Xcode when your device is connected. | answer_1 |
5318342 | what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? <sep> what happens to NSLog info when running on a device? Where does the text go? Does it get saved? Is it therefore a big overhead when running on a device, or does it effectively get sent to null? | Your device will continue logging even when it's not connected to your mac. To see the logs, you need to open Xcode, click the 'Window' menu item, and then 'Organizer'. Then select your device and then select the 'Device Logs' tab. For some reason (for me at least) viewing the logs seems flaky, so if nothing shows up, you may need to completely quit Xcode and restart it. | It gets logged out. You can retrieve it by connecting the device and looking in the organizing in xcode | answer_1 |
5796764 | From Photoshop actions to Photoshop scripting? <sep> I would like Photoshop to automatically execute the following task for a given folder: Load all PNG files in a given folder. Convert each file's mode to <code>RGB color</code> Add one layer to each file Save the files as PSD in the same folder I have been told that this can be done with Photoshop scripting, but I don't know how to get started since unfortunately I don't have much experience with JavaScript. One thing I know is that I can't run the task above using <code>Actions</code> because when I record the last step (4), Photoshop records the action to save the PSD files in the folder that I use when recording the macro (instead of the one used to load the original PNG files). In other words, it fixes the destination folder to the one used in the macro. This takes me to the following question: Is there a way to automatically generate the Photoshop Javascript code that runs a given action? If so, I wouldn't mind learning how to modify the script to fix the above folder problem. | Let me answer the question you actually asked in bold: There is a tool that automatically generates the Javascript for the actions and events that are taking place in Photoshop. It is called the Script Listener. After using the script listener to record your actions, review the log and make your selective edits. To begin using the Script Listener Close Photoshop Copy the ScriptListener.8li file from the C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Scripting\Utilities folder Paste the file to the C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Plug-ins\Automate folder. Run Photoshop, perform actions you want to happen in your script. Close Photoshop, delete the copy of the script listener from the Automate folder. Edit the log file that is placed on your desktop by the script listener. To get your new fangled script into Photoshop place the file you've created with a jsx extension into C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS5\Presets\Scripts. | look for the file SaveAsDifferentFileType.jsx on your computer, i think you could use this as starting point. There is now way that i know of to generate this code automatically. I think there is no way around learning how it works: Here the documentation: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html And here a tutorial that will tell you where to begin: http://morris-photographics.com/photoshop/tutorials/scripting1.html If you are using a MAC you could try the Automator Photoshop actions: http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=339 They will let you do what you want, without any programming know-how. | answer_1 |
pvjx8z | What is the scientific consensus about the polygraph (lie detector)? I got a new employment where they sent me to a polygraph test in order to continue with the process, I was fine and got the job but keep wondering if that is scientifically accurate, or even if it is legal, I'm not in the US btw. | It is useful for measuring how nervous the subject is. It is useless for detecting lies by those who are not afraid of being caught lying. It is easy to make yourself nervous enough during the preliminary test establishing a baseline that the normal level of nervousness around lying won't register as elevated. | Everyone knows the polygraph is highly inaccurate. The point of the test is not to catch you lying with the test, but to scare you into telling the truth. If, for example, on a job application you said that you never did drugs when in actuality you used to smoke weed, they are hoping that they can scare you into admitting the truth on the polygraph (and it often works). This is why you must remember that you have two options when applying for work in a place that employs polygraph tests: 1. Be totally honest at all times or 2. Be perfectly consistent with your lies. It is immensely unlikely that you will be disqualified because the polygraph says you are lying. It is almost unquestionable, however, that you will be disqualified if you contradict previous statements when strapped to the machine. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around cavitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | Not that the other answers are wrong, but a huge part of it also has to do with the amount of time expected to be put on the engine. Recreational boat engines are pretty much universally derived from car engines, but are expected to run just a fraction of the time. A recreational boat that sees 50 hours a year would be the exception, this is roughly equivalent to a car that drives 2,000 miles a year. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around cavitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | Something everyone else missed. From a cam and induction standpoint, partial throttle performance is secondary. Racing engines for instance, even on a road course, commonly operate at an average throttle setting above 94%. The driver is expected to keep the speed up and keep it in the right gear to stay in the power band (another reason for 7-10 speed transmissions). If you are complaining about off-throttle performance you aren't driving the thing hard enough. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | As others have said, alot of it has to do with heat management. For most Marine engines, the cooling is considerably better than that of a typical automobile. And that's a good thing, as the demand on these engines is MUCH higher than most things on wheels...there is no coasting. There's a huge load at higher throttle just to get the boat on plane. Once it's there, the throttles are dialed back but the engines still have to work under higher than average load constantly to keep it on plane. That's why the fuel burn #s are so high...2-3 mpg is in the ballpark for larger boats. Jet skis are considerably better due to their weight, but you could still burn out a 10 or 15 gallon tank in a day easily. For boats with diesels (or any boat, really), it's not so much about the throttle opening as it is the engine operating at where it makes power most efficiently. Diesels have a very narrow window of power, so it is critically important for them to be propped based on desired speed, load, etc. Overpropped and the engine will be lugging all the time. Underpropped and it'll be running at too high of an rpm and out of it's designed operational range. The same applies for gasoline marine engines...typically you'd load the boat as you would on a typical day and then do a WOT throttle run. What you're looking for is that the engine reaches its designed max rpm...usually somewhere around 6,000. If it doesn't, you're overpropped and need to be saving for a new engine (it's lugging constantly). Outside of the marine engine consideration, yes, engines that are designed to operate at peak power (not necessarily WOT) at a constant duty cycle are designed differently. Diesels are built much stronger than a typical gasoline engine, partly because of the higher compression ratio and loads demanded, but also because of the fact that they usually operate within a very narrow RPM range with alot of load behind them. This is true for marine, industrial, OTR trucks, and even "light duty" pickups with diesels. They all have stronger blocks, better cooling systems, etc to handle the loads. Even gasoline gensets (the Ford 300 comes to mind) are much more industrially-constructed. Even my F-250 with a 7.3L diesel reflects this. It runs best between 1800-2200 RPM. That's the sweet spot of where the max torque and max hp more or less average out. Anything outside of that range and it falls off quickly. It's no coincidence that at 70 MPH in sixth gear (technically 5th but first gear is a granny), the engine is turning exactly 2,000 rpm - dead in the middle of peak torque and peak hp. The engine actually runs BETTER and produces more power with a load behind it the way it was designed than it does empty. One thing to remember about a diesel is they aren't throttled. Engine RPM is controlled by amount of fuel injected, and minor variations in timing, etc. That's why you can get a runaway if the engine has an unmetered fuel source (like a blown turbo pedestal seal). | Boats and jet skis don’t run at full throttle. They are dialed back throttles and usually the limiting factor are conditions around cavitation or slip with can pose many safety concerns like runaway engine scenario or catastrophic vibrations. They can run at high loads because they are not air cooled radiators. They are water cooled thru and thru and the heater transfer to water is much more efficient than a radiator. Also don’t forget throttle position != speed != load | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | As others have said, alot of it has to do with heat management. For most Marine engines, the cooling is considerably better than that of a typical automobile. And that's a good thing, as the demand on these engines is MUCH higher than most things on wheels...there is no coasting. There's a huge load at higher throttle just to get the boat on plane. Once it's there, the throttles are dialed back but the engines still have to work under higher than average load constantly to keep it on plane. That's why the fuel burn #s are so high...2-3 mpg is in the ballpark for larger boats. Jet skis are considerably better due to their weight, but you could still burn out a 10 or 15 gallon tank in a day easily. For boats with diesels (or any boat, really), it's not so much about the throttle opening as it is the engine operating at where it makes power most efficiently. Diesels have a very narrow window of power, so it is critically important for them to be propped based on desired speed, load, etc. Overpropped and the engine will be lugging all the time. Underpropped and it'll be running at too high of an rpm and out of it's designed operational range. The same applies for gasoline marine engines...typically you'd load the boat as you would on a typical day and then do a WOT throttle run. What you're looking for is that the engine reaches its designed max rpm...usually somewhere around 6,000. If it doesn't, you're overpropped and need to be saving for a new engine (it's lugging constantly). Outside of the marine engine consideration, yes, engines that are designed to operate at peak power (not necessarily WOT) at a constant duty cycle are designed differently. Diesels are built much stronger than a typical gasoline engine, partly because of the higher compression ratio and loads demanded, but also because of the fact that they usually operate within a very narrow RPM range with alot of load behind them. This is true for marine, industrial, OTR trucks, and even "light duty" pickups with diesels. They all have stronger blocks, better cooling systems, etc to handle the loads. Even gasoline gensets (the Ford 300 comes to mind) are much more industrially-constructed. Even my F-250 with a 7.3L diesel reflects this. It runs best between 1800-2200 RPM. That's the sweet spot of where the max torque and max hp more or less average out. Anything outside of that range and it falls off quickly. It's no coincidence that at 70 MPH in sixth gear (technically 5th but first gear is a granny), the engine is turning exactly 2,000 rpm - dead in the middle of peak torque and peak hp. The engine actually runs BETTER and produces more power with a load behind it the way it was designed than it does empty. One thing to remember about a diesel is they aren't throttled. Engine RPM is controlled by amount of fuel injected, and minor variations in timing, etc. That's why you can get a runaway if the engine has an unmetered fuel source (like a blown turbo pedestal seal). | "Full throttle" is usually more dialed back than you think on those because its converting energy to push water, instead of spin a wheel. The watercraft ive learned on also use the water around it as a cooling feature by actually putting it in and around the engine, which helps dramatically in letting it run high. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Oh yes. If you’re looking to build a real high performance street motor, keep an eye open for a marine v8 to start with. Forged crank, rods, pistons are the norm because yes they are built to run full throttle all day long. Some blocks are stronger too but that varies. If it was a old school SBC v8 you could be assured it has 4 bolt main bearings instead of the vanilla 2 bolt caps. The accessories are quite different, water cooled exhaust manifolds and such won’t carry over to street use. The fuelling profile is not suitable for the street, air cleaner is insufficient etc. | Piston driven aircraft are another topic that hasn't been touched on. Reliability is the big topic when it comes to recreational and other small aircraft. Piston driven aircraft have oiling systems that can often work regardless the roll or pitch angle of the engine. This is not something you find on boats or stationary diesels or OTR diesel trucks or cars. This is executed is many different ways, but generically, dry sump oil systems are common, but wet sump aircraft engines still exist. For fueling, fuel injection is the same essentially, but if you're using a carburator for fuel/air mixing then you will likely have a heater on the carburator or in the air stream prior to the carburator to prevent icing inside the carburator, so as to prevent power loss in low temperature high humidity conditions. There are redundant systems everywhere in an aircraft engine as well. Redundant air intake, redundant spark, redundant fuel pumps and lines, redundant air/fuel mixing. You will find temperature sensors everywhere as well. Cylinder head temp sensors, even on the air cooled engines. Exhaust gas temperature, intake air temperature, oil temperature, etc. Even on many older analog engines. These sensors can give you a good idea on the load that is currently on the engine at any given time. A high sensor count is not limited to modern fuel injected engines. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | To actually answer your question, sometimes they are designed differently. Thinking specifically about generators and pressure washers, they usually run full throttle from startup to shut down, unless it's a newer style with an "idle down" feature. I've tried using an old generator engine on a go-kart and one of the problems was idle quality. It wouldn't stay running at an rpm below where the clutch would engage so I had to replace the entire carburettor. | Piston driven aircraft are another topic that hasn't been touched on. Reliability is the big topic when it comes to recreational and other small aircraft. Piston driven aircraft have oiling systems that can often work regardless the roll or pitch angle of the engine. This is not something you find on boats or stationary diesels or OTR diesel trucks or cars. This is executed is many different ways, but generically, dry sump oil systems are common, but wet sump aircraft engines still exist. For fueling, fuel injection is the same essentially, but if you're using a carburator for fuel/air mixing then you will likely have a heater on the carburator or in the air stream prior to the carburator to prevent icing inside the carburator, so as to prevent power loss in low temperature high humidity conditions. There are redundant systems everywhere in an aircraft engine as well. Redundant air intake, redundant spark, redundant fuel pumps and lines, redundant air/fuel mixing. You will find temperature sensors everywhere as well. Cylinder head temp sensors, even on the air cooled engines. Exhaust gas temperature, intake air temperature, oil temperature, etc. Even on many older analog engines. These sensors can give you a good idea on the load that is currently on the engine at any given time. A high sensor count is not limited to modern fuel injected engines. | answer_2 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | To actually answer your question, sometimes they are designed differently. Thinking specifically about generators and pressure washers, they usually run full throttle from startup to shut down, unless it's a newer style with an "idle down" feature. I've tried using an old generator engine on a go-kart and one of the problems was idle quality. It wouldn't stay running at an rpm below where the clutch would engage so I had to replace the entire carburettor. | "Full throttle" is usually more dialed back than you think on those because its converting energy to push water, instead of spin a wheel. The watercraft ive learned on also use the water around it as a cooling feature by actually putting it in and around the engine, which helps dramatically in letting it run high. | answer_1 |
fvzw99 | Are engines that are used to be used a full throttle designed differently than engines that aren’t? For example most boats/jet skis are used at full throttle pretty much the whole time you’re on one, but for cars it’s not an everyday thing to put it petal to the metal (for most people). With that, what design changes are made to engine/powertrain to run more efficiently/reliably/safely at full throttle? | Lots of good answers, so I'm just going to share this: Pe**dal** to the metal. Think like accelerating a car. How do you do that? Hold the pedal down flat and it rests on the firewall (made of metal), hence pedal to the metal. | Sort of. The design and calibration of an engine aren't always done for a single use case, so in the case of a marine application it's likely that certain components will be changed, and a calibration will be developed for that application, but the fundamental architecture of the engine will remain mostly the same. If a 100% load duty cycle is an expected assumption with the design of an engine, specific components will be designed with that in mind: cam profiles, fuel injection maps, and spark timings will all be calibrated to meet the emission requirements at that condition, and deliver the best fuel efficiency at peak power instead of lower load conditions. As far as actual component design, most aspects should remain unchanged since a marine application will likely be pretty close to the 95th percentile use case that manufacturers design for, so other than validating any application specific parts, it should be pretty similar. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Don't rinse your pasta! | What kind of pasta are you using? A pasta with a lot of grooves will hold sauce better. If your sauce is especially chunky (like mine is) something with a lot of grooves or a hole in the middle like penne would be best. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | I agree with finishing together but have to do separate due to someone’s tomato allergy… very light sauce | Buy high-end spaghetti. Cheap stuff you find at the supermarket (like Barilla, Dececco, store brand etc) is smooth like print paper. Sauce tends to slide off it. High end pasta is made in bronze machines and has many imperfections on it. But these imperfections create tiny dimples and crevices that add texture and hold your sauce better. It's worth shelling out a few more dollars for. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | I agree with finishing together but have to do separate due to someone’s tomato allergy… very light sauce | Too much liquid, especially if you use fresh tomatoes this happens. Try to cook it a bit longer to boil of some liquid or add a little bit starch to it. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | There is a good chance of it happening if you rinse your pasta or if you add oil to the water | Add a little cornflour to thicken it if it’s watery. When I say a little, I mean like a half tablespoon or something and see what happens. | answer_1 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Add a little cornflour to thicken it if it’s watery. When I say a little, I mean like a half tablespoon or something and see what happens. | Drain the pasta well. Then toss it with the hot sauce in the pan. After a minute or so it’ll stick. (Do not put plain pasta in a dish and then plop sauce on top.) A little parm can help, too. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Oil comrade, you forgot to add oil to the sauce mixture. tip: Pour room temp water on the pasta after removing the hot water from it. than spill out the room temp water, and add the sauce | If you're adding oil to your pasta during cooking, don't. | answer_2 |
zm7a25 | why doesn't my sauce stick to my spaghetti? Making sauce from scratch tomatoes, tomato paste and using ground turkey in it. What am I not doing. Very amateur cook. It tastes good but I'm still bummed. | Are you putting oil in the water? | Oil comrade, you forgot to add oil to the sauce mixture. tip: Pour room temp water on the pasta after removing the hot water from it. than spill out the room temp water, and add the sauce | answer_1 |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | Perhaps because he is dead he no longer has a real body or any actually feelings and is just a 'spirit'. Maybe it is only the way you percieve something in hell that makes it torture. | The devil's donuts are made of far less toxic ingredients than American cheese | answer_2 |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | Because Homer loves donuts | Couple of things. He was in _hell_, where the punishment was designed to make him sick of donuts. You can't get sick of donuts if you get full and no longer want to eat them. Second, hell-donuts aren't nearly as toxic as processed cheese products. It's not even a contest. | answer_2 |
kbo99c | The Simpsons] How was Homer able to eat all of Hell's donuts with no ill effects, but nearly went blind from eating 64 slices of cheese? [Homer consuming all of Hell's donuts and having the audacity to ask for more Homer struggling to eat 64 slices of american cheese | He's in Hell. How did they dice him up without killing him on the conveyer belt when he first went down? How do damned souls not die after getting tortured or etc? It's Hell. | Because Homer loves donuts | answer_1 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | A programmer once told me that as you get more and more complicated with what your code is trying to do, programming and mathematics converge. A big part of it is that for a lot of things, making a rudimentary algorithm to solve a problem is pretty easy. But this rudimentary algorithm will require a lot of steps and computations. And each step costs money in hardware (computer parts don't last forever), energy (electricity ain't cheap, and time (you actually need a solution). Mathematics can be used to improve algorithms and make things faster, easier, and cheaper. And depending on time constraints, usable. The Alan Turing film about code breaking shows all of this. In the film Turing makes a machine and has a rudimentary calculation for breaking the enigma cod le relatively early in the story. But the algorithm is rudimentary and after computing for a week it's still not done; and since the code changes every day this is useless. So they spend all day every day improving the algorithm to the point where the computer can perform all the calculations in minutes. Lots of real world problems are like this. Logistics systems change in scope and what products and locations are involved constantly, so you also want your calculations done ASAP. | answer_2 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | Sometimes mathematicians are also useful in the industry because if the way learned to reason and solve problems. Math studies require the ability to focus on one problem and find the most efficient solution for this, it requires rational thinking (als logic is also a great part of mathematics) and mathematicians are used to not being able to solve a problem on first sight but to think and riddle about it to get it done. These qualities are useful in a lot of fields, e.g. I know a lot of Managers and Consultants who a mathematicians but obviously mainly use their soft skills instead of the math part they have learned. | answer_2 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | Mathematician here. My regular job is as an analyst. Analyzing large data sets to identify trends, writing formulas, and yes debating the proper way to calculate metrics with my colleagues. I do a lot of work related to Lean Six Sigma, which is optimization and problem solving. Mathematicians are excellent problem solvers! We use logical thinking and break down problems into smaller components to identify root causes. Also, some statistics is involved with creating control charts and calculating the confidence intervals of the analyses. | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | answer_1 |
t1sp9m | Explain like I'm five years old what does a mathematician actually DO? Im not at all math savvy. In fact the opposite. I was having a conversation about math with a colleague and I realized that other than teaching i have no idea what someone with a math degree or a “Mathematician” actually does? Im curious now. Whats their day like? Who employs them? | I interviewed a pure mathematician for a course in university. Very interesting gent. He said most of what he does has no real application. He said he spent a lot of time thinking about the foil knot at the time. His average work process was to think about different problems and things that interested him for 2-3 months, then he'd lock himself in a room and write a paper on 1 or 2 days. Rinse and repeat. But some of solution will have an application. Not Explain like I'm five years old but pathway finding solutions Google maps uses has relations to geometric shapes (paths and nodes) i believe. So all that work thinking about 2000 sided shapes does make sense when you try to map out all the possible houses in a city. | Lots of industries and companies need to build models of complex systems: business analysts, stock traders, insurance actuaries, sports teams, engineering firms. Other people can also build such models, but mathematicians are the specialists at this. The tech giants employ lots of mathematicians to analyse human behaviour (you may have heard of big data). Then there are the complex systems that companies themselves need. The software that banks use to keep track of and move money around are naturally incredibly complex. Again a mathematician would have useful skills here. | answer_1 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | Second one. It just follows from the way quantum mechanics works. If you write out the state where two electrons occupy the same position with the same spin, you find that it has probability 0 of existing. | In addition to what others have said, Pauli doesn't have much to do with "smashing into each other". Electrons can still scatter off each other. They just can't have identical orbitals. | answer_2 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | In addition to what others have said, Pauli doesn't have much to do with "smashing into each other". Electrons can still scatter off each other. They just can't have identical orbitals. | The Pauli Exclusion principle. | answer_1 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | They call it an “exchange force”, buts it’s not really a force. It’s a property of the symmetries the wave function must satisfy, namely particle exchange. Electrons are identical particles. That means that if you swapped the two electrons you would not be able to tell which one was in which state. Mathematically that is the probability of interchanging particles remains the same. Total wave function solutions from the probability give us a plus and minus solution, where plus corresponds to bosons and minus to fermions. These are symmetric and antisymmetric wave functions. If we include spin, our wave function becomes the product of spin and position wave functions. It turns out that fermions always have an antisymmetric total wave function (for reasons other people have commented, spin statistics). To get an antisymmetric total, we need a symmetric and antisymmetric wave function. If the spatial one is symmetric, then the spin has to be antisymmetric (aka same spatial state opposite spins). If the spin is symmetric, they have to be in antisymmetric spatial states (same spins = can’t occupy same spatial state). If they don’t want to be in the same spatial state, they effectively are repelled. If two electron wave functions begin to overlap, they don’t like that and “push” apart. | Imo your issue is in still thinking of electrons as billiard ball barticles. Electrons are discrete excitations in quantum fields, and depending on the structure of the field they have certain properties. One of the properties is that they cannot 'overlap'. There isn't a *force* per se, it's just the nature of the field. | answer_2 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | You talk about "forces" as if they're an inherently more objective way to describe reality than things like the Pauli Exclusion Principle when in fact it's quite the opposite. But still, even if you ignore all quantum mechanics, electrons are charged particles, how would you smash them "into" each other? | Electrons are waves, they overlap with each other spatially. They interact and in some situations that interaction could seem like a smash, but in an atom they have found a stable way to be physically overlapping. | answer_1 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | Electrons are waves, they overlap with each other spatially. They interact and in some situations that interaction could seem like a smash, but in an atom they have found a stable way to be physically overlapping. | Often the answers in relativistic QM are purely maths, it's hard to give a physical picture of Clifford algebras and anticommutation relations to someone who hasn't dealt with the math. It's a trade off at times | answer_2 |
v2z4kz | It drives me nuts when I ask why electrons don't smash into each other and someone says "the Pauli Exclusion principle" As if the electrons get on the phone and call up Pauli and he tells them they can't smash together.. so they go "ok then". In other words, its a non answer. Whats the real answer? What is the force that causes this principle? Or is it just that we have no idea and have just noticed that thats the way things behave? | Electrons are waves, they overlap with each other spatially. They interact and in some situations that interaction could seem like a smash, but in an atom they have found a stable way to be physically overlapping. | > What is the force that causes this principle? In discussions of quantum mechanics, force isn't really a well-defined concept, so the type of answer you're looking for does not exist. The only valid answers will be those that you seem to consider non-answers: Those phrased in the language of quantum mechanics, which deals with wavefunctions and allowed transitions and spin. | answer_2 |
95360 | How to get a stable WLAN-connection with a Lenovo x121e? <sep> I have permament problem when using WLAN with my Lenovo ThinkPad x121e. The wireless network adapter in use is this one: lspci: <blockquote> 01:00.0 Network controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8188CE 802.11b/g/n WiFi Adapter (rev 01) </blockquote> The connection normally works OK for some time and then starts to slow down and eventually disconnects. Sometimes the connection is reestablished seconds later, sometimes it takes 30 or more seconds, sometimes it does not reconnect at all. This problem occures with every driver I tried up to now. Especially the kernel driver <blockquote> Linux ThinkPad 3.0.0-14-generic #23-Ubuntu SMP Mon Nov 21 20:28:43 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux </blockquote> and Realteks driver that can be found here. The driver I'm using at the moment is the one found in this ppa: <code>ppa:tista/x120e</code>. Here is another link to www.thinkwiki.org that hints at a "Low Power State" (LPS) option in realtek's driver but it seems that it cannot be disabled in the current driver. Is there a way to get a more stable WLAN with this setup? Some more system information: lshw -class network: <code> description: Wireless interface product: RTL8188CE 802.11b/g/n WiFi Adapter vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:01:00.0 logical name: wlan0 version: 01 serial: 38:59:f9:db:e6:83 width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress bus_master cap_list ethernet physical wireless configuration: broadcast=yes driver=rtl8192CE driverversion=0006.0321.2011 firmware=56 ip=192.168.178.35 latency=0 link=yes multicast=yes wireless=802.11bgn resources: irq:17 ioport:3000(size=256) memory:f0200000-f0203fff </code> iwconfig wlan0: <code>wlan0 802.11bgn ESSID:"xxx" Nickname:"rtl8192CE" Mode:Managed Frequency=2.452 GHz Access Point: A2:05:43:2F:6E:8E Bit Rate=65 Mb/s Retry:on RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off Power Management period:0us mode:All packets received Link Quality=100/100 Signal level=0 dBm Noise level=-120 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0 </code> ifconfig wlan: <code>wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 38:59:f9:db:e6:83 inet addr:192.168.178.35 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::3a59:f9ff:fedb:e683/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:117385 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:85652 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:115417879 (115.4 MB) TX bytes:10463799 (10.4 MB) Interrupt:17 Memory:ffffc900037a8000-ffffc900037a8100 </code> | I finally fixed this problem by compiling and installing the latest drivers from Linux Wireless in Ubuntu 12.04, in my case the "compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc.tar.bz2" package: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Download/stable/ One needs the header files for his kernel and the build-essentials package. I recommend also to run the script "driver-select" with the option rtlwifi before compiling because one doesn't need the other drivers and it reduces building time: <code>sudo apt-get install linux-headers-$(uname -r) build-essential tar jvxf compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc.tar.bz2 cd compat-wireless-3.5.1-1-snpc ./scripts/driver-select rtlwifi make sudo make install </code> But the downside is you have to rebuild the driver after every kernel update. I'm running the driver for two days now with excessive closing and opening the lid and didn't get any disconnects. | The problem could be caused by channel hopping (and the new Linux kernel). I fixed it mostly with compile the driver by my own and install it. 2nd thing I did was to scan for networks if the network is breaking. I entered in terminal <code>watch sudo iwlist wlan0 scan</code>. With this the driver kept awake. Another fix I used is to press Fn+F5 to disable wifi and then I do the same a few seconds later. One more thing I tried: <code>sudo modprobe -r rtl8192ce sudo modprobe rtl8192ce </code> This reloads the driver for wifi. I also ping sometimes the router, this keeps my wifi connection stable. | answer_1 |
o1fd3l | What caused this weird bulge in the frosting on my cakes?! Hi all! I made my first ever wedding cake this past weekend for a wedding I attended. This was the first cake I ever had for a client that sat out for at least 24 hours prior to being eaten. By no means am I a professional cake decorator so please be aware my application in skills is low but my knowledge and understanding is high. \---------------- **Cake details:** Two cakes: one 8” & one 10” *(not tiered)* \[Photos\] Both cake flavors: white cake, Swiss meringue buttercream, thin layer of raspberry filling between the 3 cake layers Temp both days: \~75°F - 80°F (Bulging started at my house where the cakes remained in my air conditioned house at 68°F) Humidity: \~70% \---------------- Does anyone have any idea what caused these two bulges to happen towards the first layer of frosting? Both tiers had this issue, as pictured. To note, the tiers were not stacked at any point so it's not like they were sinking. There were two different cake stands, the 10” sat on one and the 8” on the other. When the cakes were being cut, there was no indication of sinking in either cake. The morning of the wedding is when I first noticed the bulges. I assumed they were from condensation pockets due to the cake being slightly frozen when I frosted them. I tried to pop the pocket and smooth it over but it just wasn’t working. I scraped off all the frosting and re-frosted the cake. At this point, they had been out overnight and in no way was it possible for the layer to still be frozen. However, after a few hours went by, the cake bulged again. Any idea what causes this? I've never seen this before. **Links to the recipes I used:** White cake Swiss meringue buttercream (unsalted Kerrygold & crisco shortening due to Sweetex changing their formula and people saying it’s not worth getting anymore) Raspberry filling | I've had this issue on cakes before but I never could figure out why they did this. I assumed it was because my cake was dense and heavy and was pushing out the filling as it sat, but that was my wild guess. | What it looks like to me is that the frosting between layers is not stiff enough to support the weight of the two tortes above. I'm betting that your slight change to the frosting recipe made it *juuust* a little softer than you're used to. | answer_2 |
o1fd3l | What caused this weird bulge in the frosting on my cakes?! Hi all! I made my first ever wedding cake this past weekend for a wedding I attended. This was the first cake I ever had for a client that sat out for at least 24 hours prior to being eaten. By no means am I a professional cake decorator so please be aware my application in skills is low but my knowledge and understanding is high. \---------------- **Cake details:** Two cakes: one 8” & one 10” *(not tiered)* \[Photos\] Both cake flavors: white cake, Swiss meringue buttercream, thin layer of raspberry filling between the 3 cake layers Temp both days: \~75°F - 80°F (Bulging started at my house where the cakes remained in my air conditioned house at 68°F) Humidity: \~70% \---------------- Does anyone have any idea what caused these two bulges to happen towards the first layer of frosting? Both tiers had this issue, as pictured. To note, the tiers were not stacked at any point so it's not like they were sinking. There were two different cake stands, the 10” sat on one and the 8” on the other. When the cakes were being cut, there was no indication of sinking in either cake. The morning of the wedding is when I first noticed the bulges. I assumed they were from condensation pockets due to the cake being slightly frozen when I frosted them. I tried to pop the pocket and smooth it over but it just wasn’t working. I scraped off all the frosting and re-frosted the cake. At this point, they had been out overnight and in no way was it possible for the layer to still be frozen. However, after a few hours went by, the cake bulged again. Any idea what causes this? I've never seen this before. **Links to the recipes I used:** White cake Swiss meringue buttercream (unsalted Kerrygold & crisco shortening due to Sweetex changing their formula and people saying it’s not worth getting anymore) Raspberry filling | SMBC is soft at room temp. Make sure cakes stayed refrigerated until about an hour before needed. Especially if the temperature is warm where you are. The bulges are the icing that has now softened, being pushed out due to the weight of the cake layers. Aside from keeping your cake chilled (especially when using SMBC) use bubble tea straws (probably six in this size) to hold your layers in place. This will help stop layers from sliding when decorating, give internal support for transportation and will assist somewhat in this bulging buttercream between layers by supporting the layers a little. I'm unsure where in the world you live but I only ever make SMBC with 100% real butter, but no matter what you use, it will always be softer at room temp. | This happened to me. Goodness, that was a nightmare. What happened was: I made the frosting too thick and it became soft or melted due to the heat and because of bumps of the road during delivery, some of the layers started to *slide off*. I also had the cake a bit tall. I live in Asia, it's hot *all the time*. All this did not bode me well. The frosting got squished with the weight of the cakes. I learned a lesson that day. Next time I used dowels and that seemed to help me with my next cake. | answer_2 |
2307xu | Is there a way to make buttercream icing less sweet while still maintaining its structural integrity? My girlfriend enjoys cake decorating, and while she has no trouble making buttercream icing for piping, etc., she gets frustrated with how sweet it is due to all the powdered sugar involved (which I suppose is a pretty inherent property of icing). Is there a way to make buttercream icing less sweet somehow, like perhaps cutting part of the powdered sugar with something else? At the same time, though, it would need to maintain its structural integrity so it can still be piped and formed into flowers and other decorations. | You can actually use a pinch of salt in your buttercream and it will cut that sickly sweet flavor significantly. I use a tiny pinch of salt to about 3 cups of buttercream. | My husband and I love a cooked flour frosting, which takes longer to make but is SO worth it: https://www.google.com/search?q=cooked+icing+with+flour&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS538US538&oq=cooked+icing&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4728j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=cooked+flour+frosting+-buttercream | answer_2 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | I feel the best pan for cacio and pepe is non-stick so the cheese doesnt stick on the bottom. Second if you think your cheese isnt fine enough just put pasta water and cheese and mix it with a blender , not too silky not too clumpy. Dump pasta in and mix it vigorously and it should be fine. | Are you buying pregrated pecorino? If so try grating it yourself. | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Start boiling pasta and heat up frying pan with (freshly ground) black pepper at the same time. Once he pepper has been toasted, add pasta water. Once the pasta is almost finished, toss it into the frying pan, add water whenever necessary and keep it pretty wet. Take grated cheese in a bowl and add a few ml of hot water from pasta, stir and melt cheese. Once pasta is finished, take off heat, add some extra water and stir in the cheese. Done. | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Under cook your pasta by a minute or two before transferring to the saute pan. Agitate the pasta in the pan with the pepper and water for considerably longer than you think you need to while adding a small bit of water at a time to maintain the intended final sauce volume. When enough starch had been knocked off of the noodles to form a sauce of it's own, kill the heat and add in the cheese while continuing to move ther noodles around. I also recommend a large set of plating tweezers. | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | Just posting because no-one has put the method I learned from Lynn Rossetta Casper. I linked it here. Basically I prep the grated pecorino in a ceramic cup with an immersion after the pasta has been boiling a minute or two. Always comes out silky smooth. Also I like the challenge of limiting it to 3 ingredients and technique. Can anyone confirm if Cacio e Pepe traditionally includes butter? | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
8zry72 | Can't get the "sauce" right when making Cacio e Pepe - what am I doing wrong?! I LOVE Cacio e Pepe! It's my go to meal when I have nothing in the house. I'm not a bad cook, I'm actually a pretty good cook, but I've tried so many different methods to get the "sauce" just right but I always end up with melty (however delicious) chunks of pecorino throughout the pasta and a film of cheese kinda melted to the bottom of the pan, not really creating that silky peppery sauce I am after! Any tips, tricks or foolproof solutions to my problem would be so appreciated!!! | I went to italy and took a cooking class, we made fresh pasta and Cacio pepe. Here are the exact instructions he gave me and i have successfully repeated this at home. For 1 serving: - 100 gr. Hand made noodles - Roman pecorino cheese - Black pepper - Olive oil Cook the noodles in boiling salted water for 2-3 minutes. In a bowl, mix 2 tablespoons of cheese, a tablespoon of olive oil, a pinch of pepper and half a ladle of pasta cooking water, until it turns into a cream. Drain the noodles and let cool for 1 minute out of the water. Pour the cream cheese on noodles and stir quickly. The dish is ready | add sodium citrate and/or an acid, or keep working your technique until you nail it? | answer_1 |
3yq9pn | Explain like I'm five years old:Why can't vet drugs to put animals down be used for inmates sentenced to death? It seems that methods of execution for convicted criminals are constantly being debated for whether they cause undue pain or suffering. However, thousands of times a day, vets put down cats, hamsters, dogs, and other animals (some easily matching humans mass) with a simple shot that we're told causes the animal to just peacefully drift off and never wake up. Why can't the same drug/s be used for executions? | Pharmaceutical companies that have a monopoly on the type of chemicals used. Saw it in an article a while ago, l try to find it. Edit: Found it, also, fixed formatting. | So the companies that make these drugs actually don't want them used for executions, to the point where they will refuse to sell them to governments that do. And we use those drugs for lots of things other than executions, so its a really good threat. Government doesn't dare test it. They literally can't use the drugs to kill people, so they are forced to get creative, you've seen how well that goes in the news. Also, in the US, doctors are forbidden from taking part in executions, so now we're talking about doing medical procedures without the benefit of any actual doctors. This is pretty much insult to injury. It's a medical problem, that needs a medical solution, and medical professionals are forbidden from working on it by their professional standards and ethics organization. Edit: department of redundancy department. | answer_2 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | My two cents… If you are going all in on a certain stock in your scenario, before you buy have an exit strategy if the stock increases value and if the stock decreases value. How much money can you lose without losing your mind? 10% 20% 30% etc? Set that as your initial stop loss point and put the order in. If the stock increases value (where there is established support, not one sudden spike then a drop), then regularly increase your stop loss order point to reflect the higher support values. Best case scenario, your stop loss never triggers. The idea here is that for a stock which goes up, eventually even if the stop loss triggers you will have generated realized gains. There are other ways to approach this. Everyone finds their own style which hopefully allows them to sleep at night. | For stocks, start screening IPOs trading / pricing behaviour post IPO. IPOScooo is a good reference. To identify low priced stocks, i recommend TipRanks. Just observe and trade a virtual account for a while and then try your first shot. | answer_1 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | My two cents… If you are going all in on a certain stock in your scenario, before you buy have an exit strategy if the stock increases value and if the stock decreases value. How much money can you lose without losing your mind? 10% 20% 30% etc? Set that as your initial stop loss point and put the order in. If the stock increases value (where there is established support, not one sudden spike then a drop), then regularly increase your stop loss order point to reflect the higher support values. Best case scenario, your stop loss never triggers. The idea here is that for a stock which goes up, eventually even if the stop loss triggers you will have generated realized gains. There are other ways to approach this. Everyone finds their own style which hopefully allows them to sleep at night. | If you only 10x your initial money in 10 years, then better not start at all. You should 10x your money in a year in any bull market and double at least in any bear market. Its not rocket science, just dont listen to any buy n hold shit or other "diversify your investment " talk. Well chosen short hit n run investments, going all in, thats what gets you to your goal. You can start getting more diversified and defensive in your strategy, once you are past 100k USD. ...Second best advice for investment is to buy real estate through debt. | answer_1 |
oral16 | How to generate more money with a one-time investment? Hi, trying to learn as much as I can before starting to invest for the first time. I hope it's ok to ask for advice, if not please let me know where to post my question. This is theoretical for the most part, so feel free to point out issues in regards to the real market - but sticking to the example is just fine, too. _____ Let's say I have $1000 and that is all I have to invest into the stock market. I won't be investing any more, just this one time. I find a company that I like, doing my DD, etc. and willing to hold for a longer period of time (obviously keeping track of any relevant developments). I also have an exit strategy in case things don't work out as expected. Let's assume things work out great. The company is growing, steady and slowly. It's nothing to write home about but their value is increasing due to good decision making and solid strategies. I buy the stock at $10 per stock and because I'm super confident in this company, I invest all my money into their stocks. About 10 years later, after many ups and downs, the value of the stock has increased to $100 per stock. From the looks of it, the company keeps growing. They might plateau at some point, but as of now, it's still looking good. Seeing how well this has been going, I want to buy more stocks. But I don't have any money since the initial investment is all tied up in stocks of this specific company. What are my options? How do I generate more money without selling too much, while also re-investing any profits into that very company asap? What is a good rule of thumb when it comes to selling stocks in order to buy them back later? How much do you sell? 80%? 50%? What kind of math should I be doing, respectively what factors need to be considered to make the best possible decision? _____ I'm aware it's not going to be like this in reality, but I'm mostly interested in different strategies that do not include siphoning more money into the stock market after that initial one-time investment of $1000. I'm also aware that putting all eggs into one basket was the first mistake, but how would one go about this regardless? That said, is it actually possible to invest a specific sum and *never ever* add more to my stock market budget? Or do I have to (temporarily) move some additional money into the stock market to buy/sell to expand my portfolio once in a while? How much am I limiting myself by never investing any additional money vs. for example, adding $1000 per year to have more flexibility? _____ Sorry if this is a weird question/scenario, but couldn't really find a satisfying answer so far. Basically, I want to know if I will have to invest a certain amount of money per month/year into the stock market to grow my portfolio or if a one-time investment has just as much potential if I make good choices. Also interested to know how much money people are investing on a monthly/yearly basis - and how much of that (rough %) is to expand the portfolio and how much is about offsetting losses. | This is a great question. I think a lot of people are focusing on the specifics of the example, and not the point of the question. Obviously choosing only one stock makes your investment a lot riskier, and adding to your investment over time will make it grow faster. The issue here is that folks around here tend to focus on growth stocks, which over the last few decades have become very popular. Growth stocks don't pay dividends, which leaves you with the issue you described. You put in your money, you don't want to sell, and so at the end of the day, you still have same number of shares as before. Hopefully the price went up, but it could also come right back down. If you read books like The Intelligent Investor, you find a much different perspective, that you should only invest in a company that has a solid track record of giving good dividends. I'm not saying that's the only advice you should follow, but it helps put things in perspective. The important thing to remember here is that an investment should be compounding and so your total investment should be exponential. If the stock price of the growth company you invest in is not growing exponentially then they're not investing their money in a way that is benefitting you. The very idea of a growth company is that you invest in them, they invest money back in themselves and then you sell once their stock has stopped growing exponentially. There are great companies that are growing and also giving dividends, which will compound your investment over time. Alternatively you can sell out of the money (OTM) covered calls on your stocks. This set your expected growth rate. Either the stock price exceeds your strike price, and you sell it at that price, or it doesn't, and you hold onto the stock. Either way, you pocket the premium. If you sold the stock, but still think it will continue to rise, you can buy it again and repeat. Or you can sell a cash secured put (Google "the wheel option strategy") | For stocks, start screening IPOs trading / pricing behaviour post IPO. IPOScooo is a good reference. To identify low priced stocks, i recommend TipRanks. Just observe and trade a virtual account for a while and then try your first shot. | answer_1 |
44419 | Can the idiot's route be less expensive than the genius' route? <sep> In a certain country, there are $n$ cities. Between every pair of cities, there is a fixed travel cost to go from one city to the other. An idiot and a genius both decide to tour this country by visiting every city once. They start their tours at the same city. When choosing which city to visit next, the idiot always picks the city that is most expensive to travel to, of the ones not yet visited. Conversely, the genius always chooses the city that is cheapest to travel to. They do not revisit their starting city. For some really special value of $n$ and travel costs, is it possible for the idiot to spend strictly less than the genius? If not, I demand proof. Clarification: Travelling from City X to City Y costs the same as travelling from City Y to City X. (This was a problem I encountered at my math summer camp. I don't know the solution.) (I'm assuming that the solution has some form of math so I'm tagging with mathematics. Please change if this isn't very right.) | Artur's proof is very nice. I did it a different way. First, note that it is sufficient to prove that for any C it is impossible for the genius to take more steps of cost at least C than the idiot. So we can just consider each pair of cities as being either expensive or cheap, and prove that the idiot takes at least as many expensive steps as the genius. <blockquote> Now suppose the genius takes $r$ expensive steps and the idiot takes $s$ cheap steps. If $r=0$ or $s=0$ we are done, so suppose not. Consider the set of cities from which the genius takes an expensive step, together with the city his last expensive step gets him to. This is $r+1$ cities, and every pair of them must be connected by an expensive route (if there's a cheap pair in that set, then from whichever one he visited first he took an expensive route when there was a cheap route available). Similarly for the idiot we can find $s+1$ cities, each pair of which is connected by a cheap route. These two sets cannot have more than one city in common, so we must have $r+s+1\leq n$; rearranging this, the idiot took more expensive steps than the genius. </blockquote> | Yes the Idiot can travel less than the genius. For example in the following graph starting at A: <code> A / \ 2 1 / \ B-9-C-4-D \ / 8 3 \ / E </code> The idiot travels A-B-C-D-E for a sum of 2+9+4+3=18. The genius travels A-D-E-B-C for a sum of 1+3+8+9=21. I have different travel costs just to make sure there is an unique smallest in each city. | answer_1 |
a1uvs8 | [Explain like I'm five years old] In stores, why are cash machines responsible for calculating tax on items and not the price label machine? Aren’t they attached to the same database? Don’t item prices change more often than tax percentages? Apart from open deception intended to make you purchase too much and be too embarrassed to send stuff back it seems foolish for every other conceivable reason Wouldn’t you be more likely to shop at a store where you can intuitively know how much you have to pay before you pay? | Lower prices => More sales Humans are dumb that way, but it's how psycology works. | Rounding errors can add up. In Texas, for example, at 8 1/2% sales tax where I am, you are paying a penny in tax for every 12 cents in the price or so. If you add it all up, then compute the tax owed, the rounding error means you’ll pay the exact tax owed to less than a penny. If you compute it on each purchase, the rounding errors could really add up. For example, if you bought 100 rubber bands each costing 2 cents, you could claim to owe no tax on 2 cents, 100 times. For this reason, you are required to compute the general sales tax on the total bill, not each separate item. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | To really maximize the tenderness after velveting you can also place the chicken in a stand mixer with a paddle attachment and run it on mix for about 10 minutes. This is an extra step mall teriyaki spots like Sarku/Sakkio use in their prep. | Also use chicken thighs | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Also use chicken thighs | Kenji new book, the Wok. Has techniques that tall about tenderizing meats for this specific purpose. The term velveting has already been talked about but that book has lots of great recipes of both American style and chinese dishes. Would recommend if you are looking into this style of cuisine. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Kenji new book, the Wok. Has techniques that tall about tenderizing meats for this specific purpose. The term velveting has already been talked about but that book has lots of great recipes of both American style and chinese dishes. Would recommend if you are looking into this style of cuisine. | Velvet and pass through oil. | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_1 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Marinate the chicken in garlic ginger and soy sauce with a small amount of baking soda and vinegar. Then toss the strips in cornstarch and flour and fry | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch. “Velveting” as mentioned above | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Don’t (ever) use chicken breast. Leg and thigh all the way. It’s just tastes a million miles better. Get it boneless if you can. If not deboning of 8-10 takes me less than five minutes, just from practice. | I haven't tried velveting yet but have cooked a quite a few stir fry dishes from Kenji's new book, The Wok. I just follow the advice there: * Cut against the grain * Your knife should be perpendicular to the grain (faint white lines in the chicken breast). * Wash the chicken after cutting * Put the prepped chicken in a small bowl and fill it with cold water * Vigorously agitate the chicken in the water * Strain the water out and squeeze the chicken to get out any excess moisture * I usually just use a small bowl and my hand to strain the chicken. It doesn't seem like using a colander made it any easier unless you're cooking a ton of chicken. * Marinate the chicken for at least 15 minutes in whatever marinade you want * The marinades in the book usually consist of shaoxing wine, light soy sauce, sesame oil, corn starch, etc. but it depends on what you're cooking * Don't worry too much about time. Prep everything else and the chicken should be ready by the time you're done. When you're ready to cook, fry the chicken first until it's generally cooked on the outside then empty the wok into a bowl (I usually just use whatever bowl I marinaded the chicken in. The chicken is going back into the wok so contamination shouldn't be a factor.). Add the chicken back in after everything else is cooked but before you add the sauce. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Marinate the chicken in garlic ginger and soy sauce with a small amount of baking soda and vinegar. Then toss the strips in cornstarch and flour and fry | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Kenji has a new wok cookbook out. Can't go wrong there. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Use boneless and skinless chicken thighs. Marinate and cook on high heat. | Are you velveting the chicken? It makes a huge difference in the texture and almost all Chinese food uses this | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch. “Velveting” as mentioned above | I personally dislike that texture but hey. When I was in China they used to slightly undercook the meat slightly to make it “extra tender” and ever since then I can’t do it. Like, take it off a half second before it turns white so that by the time it’s plated it’s just barely cooked. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Use boneless and skinless chicken thighs. Marinate and cook on high heat. | I'd say one other thing is to seal it up somewhere before you eat it. (Just like a Chipotle burrito) The food naturally steams in the takeout container and softens everything a little. I'm not sure everyone would say that "tastes best", but if you're really trying to replicate take-out, that would be part of it. | answer_2 |
vmlwuz | How do I better match the chicken in Americanized Chinese takeout? When I order any chicken dish at an Americanized Chinese restaurant, the chicken is always these delicious little strips of white meat. You know the ones I mean. I’ve tried slicing chicken breast into pieces of the approximate right size but it’s never quite right and I can tell by the…grain(?) of the muscle fibers. (What’s the term I’m looking for there?) Is there a special way I should be cutting or prepping the meat? Or should I get a different cut of chicken? | Cornstarch | Use chicken thigh and leg meat as they are much more forgiving (e.g. to overcooking) compared to breast. Also velveting as others have pointed out. | answer_2 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | Space doesn’t affect time, velocity and acceleration do, if Im not mistake. Einstein explains this very clearly in his Theory of General Relativity, which you can find in full text and read on the internet. Others who are smarter about physics can explain the relativity of time here on this thread. | The key thing is that *everything* observes a different “speed” of time, yourself included, not just the watch. You wouldn’t realize that the watch is moving faster, and neither does the watch. To you and everything that is around you everything appears as normal. It’s not the watch that is behaving differently, but time itself. It’s only when you return to earth and compare watches do you realize the difference. | answer_2 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | You have a lot of comments here, but I'm not sure you have a satisfactory answer yet. It's a tricky thing to summarise succinctly and in layman's terms, but I'll try my best... Space and time are inextricably linked. It took the genius of Einstein just over 100 years ago to realise this. Part of that realisation was that both are malleable. The thing that IS fixed is the speed of light in a vacuum. Sounds crazy, but hear me out here... A repercussion of our 4-dimensional spacetime is that *every single object in the universe* is 'moving' at the same 'speed' when you add the space and time components together. The faster an object moves, the slower time *must* pass. Now, another realisation - and one that helped him move from Special Relativity in 1906 to General Relatively in 1916 - is that to an observer, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. If I put you inside a stationary lift on Earth, you would experience a 10m/s/s force pulling you down (we are so used to this we don't notice it). If I teleported that lift into an area of space far away from any strong gravitational field and pulled you at 10m/s/s it would be impossible to differentiate. For you and your watch, whatever acceleration/gravitational force is being applied, your *perception* of the passage of time would remain the same, BUT, because we can't escape the fact that the spacial and temporal components must always equate to the same value, the faster through space you move (or in the case of your example, simply removing the gravitational acceleration of Earth), the slower time must move. Your watch will appear to tick once per second *to you*, but anyone capable of looking at your watch will witness it ticking at a different rate. In this example, it's us on Earth who are accelerating, and your watch which isn't - its movement through space is zero, therefore it passes through time at the maximum rate. We on Earth are slowed slightly by being in a weak gravitational well, so will perceive your watch to be ticking slightly faster than our own. Please do ask more questions if you have them - it is incredibly difficult to explain in a few paragraphs. | A good thing to look up (which may help explain a lot, even if it’s not directly on topic & may contain information that’s harder to understand) would be NASA’s twin experiment. If I’m remembering it correctly, one went up to space while the other stayed here on earth. It should definitely be interesting for ya. | answer_1 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | You have a lot of comments here, but I'm not sure you have a satisfactory answer yet. It's a tricky thing to summarise succinctly and in layman's terms, but I'll try my best... Space and time are inextricably linked. It took the genius of Einstein just over 100 years ago to realise this. Part of that realisation was that both are malleable. The thing that IS fixed is the speed of light in a vacuum. Sounds crazy, but hear me out here... A repercussion of our 4-dimensional spacetime is that *every single object in the universe* is 'moving' at the same 'speed' when you add the space and time components together. The faster an object moves, the slower time *must* pass. Now, another realisation - and one that helped him move from Special Relativity in 1906 to General Relatively in 1916 - is that to an observer, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. If I put you inside a stationary lift on Earth, you would experience a 10m/s/s force pulling you down (we are so used to this we don't notice it). If I teleported that lift into an area of space far away from any strong gravitational field and pulled you at 10m/s/s it would be impossible to differentiate. For you and your watch, whatever acceleration/gravitational force is being applied, your *perception* of the passage of time would remain the same, BUT, because we can't escape the fact that the spacial and temporal components must always equate to the same value, the faster through space you move (or in the case of your example, simply removing the gravitational acceleration of Earth), the slower time must move. Your watch will appear to tick once per second *to you*, but anyone capable of looking at your watch will witness it ticking at a different rate. In this example, it's us on Earth who are accelerating, and your watch which isn't - its movement through space is zero, therefore it passes through time at the maximum rate. We on Earth are slowed slightly by being in a weak gravitational well, so will perceive your watch to be ticking slightly faster than our own. Please do ask more questions if you have them - it is incredibly difficult to explain in a few paragraphs. | different areas of expertiese with different themes here - First lets discuss how a watch works. 2 types of commonly used watches today, Mechanical source and electrical source. - Mechanial source watches use a spring which releases force, this force is controlled by an escapement which uses the vibration of a sping to move sideways to control a brake which stops the and starts the release of power, this is done between 18000 and 1,000,000 a minute but most commonly 21,600 and 28,800 times. these watches are VERY sensative to acceleration, impacts and sudden movements, a master watchmaker called Abraham-Louis Breguet inveted the tourbillon which is a escapement which spins on its own axis to improve this, but it was mostly cosmetic. these watches are accurate to betweet 2 seconds a day and 1 minute a day, depending between a watch like a Rolex or a Grand Seiko which are guarnteed to run under 2 seconds a day, to a Russian Vostok which feels like its made from left over coke cans. you have to understand that people mostly buy them for nustalgic and engnieering reasons, i wear a mechanical seiko chronograph myself, and nasa still uses the Speedmaster Pro which is a mechanical chronograph which was due to be replaced by the Omega Speedmaster X33 but they prefered the old mechanical. - Electric source, This is where the mechanism is powered by a electrical motor, originally they used a electric motor replacing the mainspring in a mechanical watch, then moved to the bulova accutron which used a tunning fork occilator as a regulating mechanism, then in 1969 Seiko introduced the astron which used a 8Khz quartz crystal allowing a 4 second per day accuracy. today they use a 32Khz quartz cristal, this works on the piezoelectric where when an ionic crystal (a crystal composed of positive and negative ions) is compressed it produces current, now the inverse works as well, so if you cut a quartz crystal to the correct shape (a tunning fork) and apply current to it, you can get an exact vibration requency, which is 32Khz, this gives it an accuracy of 0.5 Seconds per day (yes, a 10 buck F91-W "taliban" is more accurate then a Rolex Oyster Perpetual), and there are high frequcncy or thermocompensated quartz watches that take it to 10 seconds per YEAR, Now the reason why Quartz watches tick is becuase the first quartz watches were power hungry, and they found that moving the seconds hand 1 per second instead of having it move continously saved battery, usually this was a feature on mechanical watches called a dead second and was very respected and desired, the quartz watch basically killed it. now the space agencies of the world are more worried about batteries exploding then the accuracy of mechanical watches so many have stuck to mechanicals for a long time but we have seen many quartz watches go to space once the batteries were certified to not be ticking time bombs when exposed to the acceleration and radiation of space travel. Now the second theme here is relativity. The thing is that the faster an item goes, the more energy it required to move, and the faster it moves though space, the slower it moves through time. Time is a dimension and i suspect also a vector, so the faster its moving in one vector, the slower its moving in others (aka time), as time is another dimension in which an object travels, the faster it goes, the more energy it needs and tends to infinity the closer you get to the speed of light, but time goes to 1/infinity the closer you get to the speed of light. where the offects are negligable at the speeds we can travel, satelites and space craft which reach a significant speed (a GPS satelite does 14000 KPH) will require correcting a few seconds per year due to time dialation. | answer_1 |
tyvvdi | Explain like I'm five years old: If someone is on Earth, and the other is in space, why would their wrist-watch show a different time? I understand that space travel affects time, but why would it affect the mechanisms of a watch? doesn't it just go tiktik u know? | Space doesn’t affect time, velocity and acceleration do, if Im not mistake. Einstein explains this very clearly in his Theory of General Relativity, which you can find in full text and read on the internet. Others who are smarter about physics can explain the relativity of time here on this thread. | A good thing to look up (which may help explain a lot, even if it’s not directly on topic & may contain information that’s harder to understand) would be NASA’s twin experiment. If I’m remembering it correctly, one went up to space while the other stayed here on earth. It should definitely be interesting for ya. | answer_2 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | I know you're saying bags, not quilts, but I know that nunatak makes custom bigger footboxes on their quilts. Maybe some bag maker does the same? | The Nemo spoon shaped bags may be a good fit. And I believe feathered friends make some as well. On the budget side you could get an Outdoor Vitals Aerie those are square and pretty versatile. | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | Don't be afraid to modify gear. Cut a slit and sew in part of an old down jacket or something. A gear repair shop can do it. I found a small tailor shop that does such fixes very inexpensively. I just bring in what I want modified and they do it. | Western Mountaineering makes really nice rectangular and semi-rectangular bags for a variety of temperatures. Look at the Ponderosa or Sequoia | answer_2 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | Western Mountaineering makes really nice rectangular and semi-rectangular bags for a variety of temperatures. Look at the Ponderosa or Sequoia | Marmot Yolla bolly is AMAZING! I have the yolla bolly 15. A bit Spendy but so nice and can unzip into a full blanket. Is not UL but is still light for the space you get | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | May have some luck looking at the Patagonia bags. I have the 19 degree bag and it isn’t close to the lightest for the temp rating, but damn is it it comfy. The foot box is the most comfy I’ve tried this far. They were on sale not that long ago, not sure now. | If you'd simply double your budget :-) you won't find better than this. | answer_1 |
jnn4nv | Sleeping Bags With Foot Room I ran into a bit of an issue on my recent adventures: I kept getting tendon injuries in my ankles. At first I thought it was my footwear, then I thought it was the way I hunker down to rummage through my pack. After eliminating those variables I still wasn't healing. Then I stopped using my mummy bag and VOILA! Turns out my feet don't like small footboxes. I even got a longer mummy bag and the issues persisted, so now I'm looking to switch over to a rectangular bag, but it seems manufacturers aren't making those as much anymore. So I'm in the market for a nice rectangular bag, or possibly a barrel bag. Anything with a large footbox really. I could use some advice! I'm in Canada and I'm having a hard time finding anything good. I'm 6'3" with size 13 feet. A winter bag would be optimal, budget 200-400 CAD, doesn't necessarily have to be down, but this is r/ultralight so who am I kidding. TL;DR: My tendons are made of fail and I could use advice on a sleeping bag with a large footbox. | If you'd simply double your budget :-) you won't find better than this. | The Nemo Disco is phenomenal. I'm a side sleeper, so I appreciate the spoon shape that tapers at the waist slightly, then broadens by the knees and feet. It goes down to 15 degrees and has a ton of other features. Zippable heat baffles, condensation protection at the feet, ice cold materials to the touch, ect... Read up on it, I cant remember all the features. It's 3 lbs. of course. It's a big bag, and warm, so there had to be a trade off somewhere. It's still my favorite piece of gear, 3lbs is better than not sleeping. | answer_2 |
182100 | (Very) High dimensional manifolds <sep> Usually one regards manifolds up to dimension 4 as a part of low dimensional topology. There are plenty of various results which work only in low dimensional topology; especially in dimension 4. However still there are phenomena which occur only up from certain dimensions above 4: For example the famous result of Milnor, which states that each $PL$ manifold of dimension $n$ is in fact smooth provided that $n \leq 7$. My question is the following: Could you give an example of the (reasonable) theorem of the type "each manifold of dimension $n$ have some property $P$ provided that $n \leq K$ (and for $n>K$ there are counterexamples)," where $K$ is some large number? | The smallest example of a manifold that is homotopy equivalent to a topological group, but not rationally equivalent to a Lie group has dimension 1254. | <blockquote> Theorem (Simons). Let $E\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ be of minimal perimeter. If $n\le7$, then $\partial E$ is a hyperplane. </blockquote> If instead $n=2m\ge8$, then Simons provides the example of a minimal surface $$x_1^2+\cdots+x_m^2=x_{m+1}^2+\cdots+x_{2m}^2$$ whose mean curvature vanishes identically. Bombieri, De Giorgi & Giusti proved that this cone is a minimal surface. This shows that the limit $n\le7$ in the Theorem is sharp. | answer_1 |
59771 | How to remove fog while shooting and during post-processing? <sep> Recently I came across the following problem: I went hiking and since it's winter there was some fog. I took the picture below and wondered how I could have minimised the fog in this shot to get a clear, sharp photo of the landscaepe. What measures can I take while shooting? And what can I do in post to minimise the effect of the fog? | Step 1: Duplicate layer As we don't want to do any destructive editing, make sure you duplicate your layer (Layer>Duplicate Layer) and rename it. Quick Selection ToolStep 2: Selection If your foreground detail is out of the fog and it's the background you want to clear up you'll need to do a simple selection so the foreground stays as is. The Quick Selection Tool is the best way to select the foreground. Simple Click and drag over the area you don't want the changes applied to then go to Select>Inverse so when you follow the next steps, the changes will only be applied to the background. If it's foreground detail you want to bring out of the fog, you don't need to do this first step. Step 3: Exposure correction To pull the foreground or background out of the fog you'll need to adjust the exposure. To do this go to Image>Adjustment>Levels. Look to the right of the histogram and you'll see there's a large gap between where the graph ends and the white slider sits. Drag the slider in towards the end of the histogram until the object you can't see becomes more visible. You can do the same with the black slider but be careful how far you drag it as it can darken the image too much. Once you're happy click OK. Adjusting levels Adjusting levels Step 4: Unsharp mask Next we are going to give the scene even more detail. To do this go to: Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask. Don't over-do the Amount, 100% was fine for our image, and keep the Threshold and Radius figures low. Then Click OK. Unsharp mask Step 5: Up the contrast The shot still looks a little too foggy so we are going to up the contrast by going to: Image>Adjustments>Brightness/Contrast. Pull the contrast slider to the right, we moved ours to 80. You may also want to adjust the brightness but this is down to personal taste. Remember you can always move the sliders around and re-set them if you don't like it. Once happy, click OK. Contrast adjustment When you've adjusted the contrast your image is complete. Take a look at the finished images: Scene with fog removed | The first thing to know about fog is that its effect is more pronounced with distance. The best is to get as close as possible. Do not zoom in, get closer instead. Don't fall into the cliff though! Second is that fog reflects light. Do not flash it. Shoot it from an angle where the fog receives the least light from other sources, such as street lamps. Increase contrast, in camera, if possible. You may be able to dial in an additional increase for contrast in shadow areas, depending on your camera (most Pentax DSLRs and Olympus mirrorless can do this, a few others can too). On some Nikon DSLRs, you can also increase Clarity which does wonders for fog. A bit of an increase in saturation can help too. This is where you have to experiment. When you find good settings, save them. Fog is quite a distinct case that most of my DSLRs have a User setting which I have made specifically for fog. Don't forget to switch bag to normal once the fog is gone. While you still have a low-contrast image, your histogram will not reach both sides. This is a good time to expose-to-the-right (ETTR). It will give an image which looks probarly overly bright but you will have more latitude do correct the lack of contrast in software this way. Since this change affects exposure, it will help even if you shoot RAW or DNG. If you do not shoot JPEG at all, the previous two paragraphs do not apply. Once the image is captured, repeat the third paragraph with an image-processing software. You will have the chance to increase contrast and clarity, plus adjust the final exposure to your liking. For an image which already had good contrast overall but still does not show much details in foggy areas, you can fine-tune results via the curves too. Know your camera's sharpness settings, it often has a -5 to 5 or 0 to 9 scale. The default is around the middle. You can increase a few steps to improve sharpness but too much and you will see sharpening artifacts, so learn that limit. If you go too far, even noise gets sharper! | answer_2 |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 3