I saw a “job” posting for an engineer to develop that technology for someone. They were quite clear that they needed an out of the box thinker type, which made me wonder how many times this was explained to them.
I think about that posting sometimes and worry that he will just try it and the turbine will just fly off on the highway into the car behind his.
There was a Veritasium video like 2 years ago about wind powered vehicles. I guess it’s possible they saw a video like it. Physics can be very unintuitive sometimes, but, vehicles like sail boats do make sense.
You could probably apply the land sail craft trick to a car with a fan. The fan might need a special design, but it could potentially work the same way.
Go ahead but please please don’t go on a public road. There is enough death in the world, we don’t have to add to it when a blade flings off your turbine and takes out an innocent.
Ironically, that’s nonsense. Experimental cars on public roads barely cause any deadly accidents (under 1%), unlike distracted road-certified human drivers (over 80%); there is still twice as many births than deaths per year, predictions don’t expect there to be “enough” deaths for a stable population before 2085; and wind turbine blades already can change pitch without flying apart anyway. 🤷
I’m sorry, are you saying experimental cars cause almost 1% of road deaths, despite making up a tiny fraction of 1% of cars on the road? or is everything you just said made up and I majorly whooshed?
You seem to have interpreted “under 1%” as “almost 1%” instead of “less than 1%”. Less than 1% includes 0%… which it isn’t, because there have been a few deaths caused by experimental cars, just far fewer than the hundreds of thousands caused by drivers of fully certified cars. Similarly, “over 80” includes figures like 84% or 92% that I’ve seen cited from a quick Google search.
In any case, if you think any of what I said is made up, only way to be sure would be to check it out yourself, wouldn’t it?
You seem to have interpreted “under 1%” as “almost 1%” instead of “less than 1%”. Less than 1% includes 0%… which it isn’t,
Sure! But if you actually knew the figure, you’d say it. If you were making it up you’d use weasel words like “under 1%” when you knew the figure wasn’t near 1%.
In any case, if you think any of what I said is made up, only way to be sure would be to check it out yourself, wouldn’t it?
Sure, if authorities were in the habbit of reporting road deaths split by “experimental” and “non-exprimental” cars. If they aren’t, the only option is to make it up.
I wasn’t able to find any stats, but it seems irrelevant anyway. You basically saw someone saying “please don’t try to sit on an airplane as it flies”, and decided to reply with “that’s ridiculous fear mongering, less than 1% of aircraft deaths are from people riding on aircraft”. The fact experimental cars are a tiny proportion of total cars makes your comparison meaningless.
I saw a “job” posting for an engineer to develop that technology for someone. They were quite clear that they needed an out of the box thinker type, which made me wonder how many times this was explained to them.
I think about that posting sometimes and worry that he will just try it and the turbine will just fly off on the highway into the car behind his.
There was a Veritasium video like 2 years ago about wind powered vehicles. I guess it’s possible they saw a video like it. Physics can be very unintuitive sometimes, but, vehicles like sail boats do make sense.
It wasnt a land sail craft it was a fan that powered a car thus giving infinite energy. Also he was offering to pay in future stock.
You could probably apply the land sail craft trick to a car with a fan. The fan might need a special design, but it could potentially work the same way.
Go ahead but please please don’t go on a public road. There is enough death in the world, we don’t have to add to it when a blade flings off your turbine and takes out an innocent.
Ironically, that’s nonsense. Experimental cars on public roads barely cause any deadly accidents (under 1%), unlike distracted road-certified human drivers (over 80%); there is still twice as many births than deaths per year, predictions don’t expect there to be “enough” deaths for a stable population before 2085; and wind turbine blades already can change pitch without flying apart anyway. 🤷
I’m sorry, are you saying experimental cars cause almost 1% of road deaths, despite making up a tiny fraction of 1% of cars on the road? or is everything you just said made up and I majorly whooshed?
You seem to have interpreted “under 1%” as “almost 1%” instead of “less than 1%”. Less than 1% includes 0%… which it isn’t, because there have been a few deaths caused by experimental cars, just far fewer than the hundreds of thousands caused by drivers of fully certified cars. Similarly, “over 80” includes figures like 84% or 92% that I’ve seen cited from a quick Google search.
In any case, if you think any of what I said is made up, only way to be sure would be to check it out yourself, wouldn’t it?
Sure! But if you actually knew the figure, you’d say it. If you were making it up you’d use weasel words like “under 1%” when you knew the figure wasn’t near 1%.
Sure, if authorities were in the habbit of reporting road deaths split by “experimental” and “non-exprimental” cars. If they aren’t, the only option is to make it up.
I wasn’t able to find any stats, but it seems irrelevant anyway. You basically saw someone saying “please don’t try to sit on an airplane as it flies”, and decided to reply with “that’s ridiculous fear mongering, less than 1% of aircraft deaths are from people riding on aircraft”. The fact experimental cars are a tiny proportion of total cars makes your comparison meaningless.