You should post that over in the "How Bill Nye Insulted NASCAR. Someone over there is talking about how Stupid Nye is because NASCAR is the most scientifically based racing on earth (paraphrasing)
Pushrods and carbs - cutting edge from a hundred plus years ago.
They may not have the body styling or even the general frame sometimes, but the engines and other innards are usually based on real cars. That's why there's a thing about, this driver uses a Chevy or that one uses a Ford, etc.
So what you are saying is that I can go to the Chevy dealership, and have one of those engines in an off the shelf vehicle? Come on, you can't stretch stock that far.
It saddens me that whenever NDGT and Nye are brought up on Slashdot there is such a terrible knee jerk reaction. So many posters and scientists seem to think that if someone communicates science they are automatically wrong and don't understand science.
Its weird, when the popularizer gets attacked from both sides. I can understand on some level the deniers who have a political agenda. I don't agree with them, but we live in a world where money interests attempt to bend physics to their political will.
But if there is one ridiculous sin of some scientists, it is that some of them hate the popularizer. I think I know why they do.
Ever deal with someone who when they explain something to you, they seem to be trying more to tell you how smart they are than explain? Maybe some of these folks have fallen prey to that. I'm much closer to the popularizer model - I believe that most concepts can be explained at some level that the listener can comprehend.
This is the exact attacks Sagan had to deal with when he published his paper on global warming, they attacked him because he loved to communicate science and was good at it as clearly is shown in Cosmos. It saddens me that the community hasn't changed at all.
This story is the perfect example of that. Bill Nye sneering, depressed,calling NASCAR fans Red State Yokels. All made up from whole cloth.
Now I think we all know that his idea for a fuel economy based race wouldn't work with NASCAR - but his idea of a fuel restriction while at first seeming odd, is in reality in the same league as the restrictor plates they put on their cars. Except that they would be trying to eke as much performance out of that instead of slow the cars down, as NASCAR is doing.
In the end a fuel limited race can make for some possibly interesting developments. Not in NASCAR, but another race. Imagine tweaking the last bit of efficiency out of engines, and what that might translate to lengthening the time that petrofueled vehicles are viable. Already I'm thinking of an engine with the hotparts constructed out of ceramic to get as much thermodynamic efficiency as possible. Depending on the rules, braking pressure based regeneration, many innovations to be had.
For safety reasons, never. F1 has been increasingly limited because the cars had reached speeds that no driver could successfully manage (but some, tragically, tried). Pretty much every element of racing has been successfully optimized tot he point where the human is the limit.
If you want the most ridiculous engines, within the realm of reciprocating pistons, look no farther than top fuel dragsters. They run at the limits of the laws of physics these days, and they shortened the track from 1/4 mile because the cars were just too damn fast for safety, rather than reducing power.
And soo expensive. But yeah, nothing like extending a technology to it's limit. Which NASCAR definitely does not do. They purposely restrict performance. To the point where teh biggest skill needed is the ability to drive in a multi car jam at high speed That is a freaky talent, but not certain its the original spirit of NASCAR.
The owner claims that Bill was sneering and depressed about things, and seems to have called NASCAR fans "red state yokels".
I watched the video twice - didn't have anything there on any of that, it was a rather nice conversation with Bloomberg's people about education mostly.
I asked the author of the story, if he could provide me the cites or any information regarding Nye sneering about NASCAR fans, or calling them red state yokels.
But that isn't it at all - is it Slash Dotters. Nye rubs you the wrong way because he believes in global warming, so in the truthiness bubble, he actaully did sneer at those NASCAR fans who are red State yokels. That's what will get repeated by y'all isn't it?
If you actually do read the article, what he said was an opinion, and knowing NASCAR fans myself, a fairly mild one at that.
One of the things he writes:
“There’s no reason why NASCAR couldn’t be like [NASA]: a race with rules designed to reward the coolest, most advanced vehicle technologies,”
Doesn't sound too bad now does it?
Now a more controversial matter, but hardly insulting - He speaks of making a fuel use limit - I'm not all about that, I'de sooner see them burning ally, (just my opinion) but I'm certainly not insulted.
He also notes:
“I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It’s just exciting, and I’m all for it,” he writes. “I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward.”
Amazing how those innocuous comments get turned into Sneers and calling NASCAR fans Red State Yokels.
Anyhow, here is the link to a site that isn't grinding an axe, and prefers actual quotes to made up stuff. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Finally, NASCAR is raced in oval tracks that are more spectator friendly than F1. For example, the Martinsville track was built in 1948. The cars must be capped in a number of ways to limit the risk to spectators who are much closer to the track (and in some tracks, the spectators surround every inch of the entire track).
Wouldn't it just be easier to use actual production cars then? That would slow them down. Just seems odd to spend the time and money building vehicles that are deliberately handicapped.
NASCAR is about figuring out how to best tune an existing engine - analogous to engineering existing technology to solve real-world problems. Both contribute to technological progress.
While true, the main reason for the slow march of technology in NASCAR is to maintain affordability of the sport. The France family doesn't want to be a bunch of pretentious snobs in a sport dominated by spoiled rich kids which, at least in popular perception, is what Formula 1 is.
If your assessment was correct, NASCAR would still be racing cars based on production cars, not what they are using now.
"People who don't like what I like are stupid." NASCAR is probably the most science/engineering oriented sport out there.
To the point it is a huge bore - the cars are so similar and haven't a thing to do with Stock cars.
And they really jumped the shark when ex indy driver (another group that can go to hell) Danica Patrick came over, and they hyped her like she was the first woman driver to ever race. She wasn't, which was and is an insult to other female racers, and for a while at least, they were reporting stories about her crashes and temper tantrums, and sometimes forgot to mention who won the race in the stories.
But the real pile that Bill stepped in was criticizing NASCAR. There's lots of insider bitching going on, but if you are an outsider - you don't do that. The faithful do not put up with that.
I agree. He's worn out his welcome by being such a snob all the time.
I mostly agree - although auto racing, especially NASCAR and Indy, isn't all that interesting these days.
In fact, when I was a kid, I gave up on Indy racing. I was getting really interested, and I was super impressed with the STP Turbocar. This thing was putting the piston cars to shame, but a 6 dollar gearbox bearing failure cost it the race.
So what did USAC do? First they limited the engine intake area to 24 inches. But the plucky little turbo, despite a acceleration time lag, could still produce lots of ponies. So in the spirit of technology, the USAC then limited the intake to 16 inches, and imposed the ruling immediately, rather than the 2 year notice normally given, and killed the Turbocar.
It was so freakin' cool, and the bastards killed it because the piston engines couldn't compete with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Looking back, I think that might be the foundations of my cynicism and why I like EV's so much. Technology that earns such hatred must be on to something.
And NASCAR demands that all the cars be about as identical as possible, giving rise to the 200 mph traffic jam effect. Yeah, that's fun.
And in the spirit of that..... 6.94 seconds at 201 mph on an electric bike
anyhow, they aren't 100 percent related to this other than that I believe that Indy and NASCAR are anti competitive, and it's fun to see people doing it differently. Hell that's half the excitement. They're here just for fun
Oh, and I forgot to comment on the fact that I absolutely do not believe you that movies have become more realistic over the years. At all. Because they haven't.
Don't you miss the car going off a cliff and always bursting into flames? A staple of 70's movies and TV.
I remember for a while, the Simpson's would spoof that - the best one was when a baby carriage rolled down some steps, fell over, and blew up.
Making that pile of crap "realistic" wouldn't have helped. But really, how realistic can you make a movie about a gigantic lizard?
Realistic isn't even the point of the Godzilla movies. They are camp they are more comedy than scifi.
Godzilla should never be other than a guy in a rubber suit.
It's funny, one of my son's vivid memories is sitting with me watching Son of Godzilla, perhaps the funniest one of all. Gojira as a doting dad - doesn't get much better than that.
Right. So where is the "surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD), hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture".
I have seen an ad for a drug on one of the national tv channels then immediately following that commercial was a lawyer commercial, advertising that if you'd taken THE SAME DRUG IN THE PREVIOUS COMMERCIAL and had experienced the listed side effects, you should call "1-800-BADDRUG", and you might be entitled to substantial compensation... All I could do was shake my head at this.. I wonder if the station/network got their asses chewed for that slipup.....
I think that is the television version ot the internt's Tailored web experience.
Wind turbines are giant mixing blades. Downstream from a turbine there are turbulent vortexes that mix with higher layers of air, renewing the wind speed at ground level. That's why a wind farm spaces the turbines about 5 diameters apart, to allow time for the mixing.
Yes, turbines extract some energy from the wind, and slow it down a bit, but they do so from a thicker layer of air than they are tall, and wind speeds at higher altitudes are faster than at ground level. Hills and trees produce friction, and slow down surface winds.
Awesome! Perpetual motion, and free energy extraction. Quick - To Youtube!
They will extract energy from the wind, that much is true. There has to be some local measureable effect of a tiny bit less wind, because the energy changed form
If that were true, there'd already be some measurable impact on the wind from ships with tall sails, surely?
The effect has to be minuscule. But since you are taking wind, and removing energy form it, it will have an effect
In an open market the advertisers would realize this, and make their ads more attractive. The FDA prevents them from doing so, and prevents advertisers from offering offshore sources, even of the same compounds.
As much as I would like to believe that, advertising in general is screaming Look at me! Look at me! The only real regulation on the medicine side is that they have to spend a lot of time telling you the side effects, which is alittle off putting. The Lawyers? The people trying to get you to give up an annuity for some instant cash? They are pretty much unfettered, at least in advertising.
And that's pretty much why I'm saying that there are other factors at work here. Where they are at now - it isn't working, and there is a competitor in town. The intertoobz. So some of the big players like Comcast, they have a vested interest in having people buy their television service. And people are cutting that cable to the point that they are really concerned.
You would need ridiculous numbers of turbines just to slow down the breeze in a general area a little bit, so that area might be a little warmer locally because cooler air isn't pushing through, or warmer air, or something.
Interesting stuff. I hadn't considered pulling warm air from upper air to the surface at night. In the end though that is a redistribution issue. But looks like the energy extraction transfer issue is indeed very small.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is they don't know what it will do to the ice surface.
Well seems to me like they could answer that question easily in a weekend. They can even have fun with it.
Take a rink, and have an "experimental tournament". run it the whole weekend using the new brooms, and see what happens.
Then free beer for everyone!
It'll make the official games more boring
You should post that over in the "How Bill Nye Insulted NASCAR. Someone over there is talking about how Stupid Nye is because NASCAR is the most scientifically based racing on earth (paraphrasing)
Pushrods and carbs - cutting edge from a hundred plus years ago.
And NASCAR demands that all the cars be about as identical as possible, giving rise to the 200 mph traffic jam effect. Yeah, that's fun.
What are you whining about? Looks fun to me.
Fun, like taste in music, is in the eyes of the beerholder.
Will you give us a break with that shit?
Or at least some toilet paper.
A lot of people who believe in Red Mercury don't believe in global warming.
On that movie set where they faked the moon landings.
...They are...
They may not have the body styling or even the general frame sometimes, but the engines and other innards are usually based on real cars. That's why there's a thing about, this driver uses a Chevy or that one uses a Ford, etc.
So what you are saying is that I can go to the Chevy dealership, and have one of those engines in an off the shelf vehicle? Come on, you can't stretch stock that far.
It saddens me that whenever NDGT and Nye are brought up on Slashdot there is such a terrible knee jerk reaction. So many posters and scientists seem to think that if someone communicates science they are automatically wrong and don't understand science.
Its weird, when the popularizer gets attacked from both sides. I can understand on some level the deniers who have a political agenda. I don't agree with them, but we live in a world where money interests attempt to bend physics to their political will.
But if there is one ridiculous sin of some scientists, it is that some of them hate the popularizer. I think I know why they do.
Ever deal with someone who when they explain something to you, they seem to be trying more to tell you how smart they are than explain? Maybe some of these folks have fallen prey to that. I'm much closer to the popularizer model - I believe that most concepts can be explained at some level that the listener can comprehend.
This is the exact attacks Sagan had to deal with when he published his paper on global warming, they attacked him because he loved to communicate science and was good at it as clearly is shown in Cosmos. It saddens me that the community hasn't changed at all.
This story is the perfect example of that. Bill Nye sneering, depressed ,calling NASCAR fans Red State Yokels. All made up from whole cloth.
Now I think we all know that his idea for a fuel economy based race wouldn't work with NASCAR - but his idea of a fuel restriction while at first seeming odd, is in reality in the same league as the restrictor plates they put on their cars. Except that they would be trying to eke as much performance out of that instead of slow the cars down, as NASCAR is doing.
In the end a fuel limited race can make for some possibly interesting developments. Not in NASCAR, but another race. Imagine tweaking the last bit of efficiency out of engines, and what that might translate to lengthening the time that petrofueled vehicles are viable. Already I'm thinking of an engine with the hotparts constructed out of ceramic to get as much thermodynamic efficiency as possible. Depending on the rules, braking pressure based regeneration, many innovations to be had.
For safety reasons, never. F1 has been increasingly limited because the cars had reached speeds that no driver could successfully manage (but some, tragically, tried). Pretty much every element of racing has been successfully optimized tot he point where the human is the limit.
If you want the most ridiculous engines, within the realm of reciprocating pistons, look no farther than top fuel dragsters. They run at the limits of the laws of physics these days, and they shortened the track from 1/4 mile because the cars were just too damn fast for safety, rather than reducing power.
And soo expensive. But yeah, nothing like extending a technology to it's limit. Which NASCAR definitely does not do. They purposely restrict performance. To the point where teh biggest skill needed is the ability to drive in a multi car jam at high speed That is a freaky talent, but not certain its the original spirit of NASCAR.
I watched the video
I went to the links on the article.
The owner claims that Bill was sneering and depressed about things, and seems to have called NASCAR fans "red state yokels".
I watched the video twice - didn't have anything there on any of that, it was a rather nice conversation with Bloomberg's people about education mostly.
I asked the author of the story, if he could provide me the cites or any information regarding Nye sneering about NASCAR fans, or calling them red state yokels.
But that isn't it at all - is it Slash Dotters. Nye rubs you the wrong way because he believes in global warming, so in the truthiness bubble, he actaully did sneer at those NASCAR fans who are red State yokels. That's what will get repeated by y'all isn't it?
If you actually do read the article, what he said was an opinion, and knowing NASCAR fans myself, a fairly mild one at that.
One of the things he writes:
“There’s no reason why NASCAR couldn’t be like [NASA]: a race with rules designed to reward the coolest, most advanced vehicle technologies,”
Doesn't sound too bad now does it?
Now a more controversial matter, but hardly insulting - He speaks of making a fuel use limit - I'm not all about that, I'de sooner see them burning ally, (just my opinion) but I'm certainly not insulted.
He also notes:
“I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It’s just exciting, and I’m all for it,” he writes. “I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward.”
Amazing how those innocuous comments get turned into Sneers and calling NASCAR fans Red State Yokels.
Anyhow, here is the link to a site that isn't grinding an axe, and prefers actual quotes to made up stuff. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Finally, NASCAR is raced in oval tracks that are more spectator friendly than F1. For example, the Martinsville track was built in 1948. The cars must be capped in a number of ways to limit the risk to spectators who are much closer to the track (and in some tracks, the spectators surround every inch of the entire track).
Wouldn't it just be easier to use actual production cars then? That would slow them down. Just seems odd to spend the time and money building vehicles that are deliberately handicapped.
NASCAR is about figuring out how to best tune an existing engine - analogous to engineering existing technology to solve real-world problems. Both contribute to technological progress.
Don't forget drinking beer and getting baked.
While true, the main reason for the slow march of technology in NASCAR is to maintain affordability of the sport. The France family doesn't want to be a bunch of pretentious snobs in a sport dominated by spoiled rich kids which, at least in popular perception, is what Formula 1 is.
If your assessment was correct, NASCAR would still be racing cars based on production cars, not what they are using now.
"People who don't like what I like are stupid." NASCAR is probably the most science/engineering oriented sport out there.
To the point it is a huge bore - the cars are so similar and haven't a thing to do with Stock cars.
And they really jumped the shark when ex indy driver (another group that can go to hell) Danica Patrick came over, and they hyped her like she was the first woman driver to ever race. She wasn't, which was and is an insult to other female racers, and for a while at least, they were reporting stories about her crashes and temper tantrums, and sometimes forgot to mention who won the race in the stories.
But the real pile that Bill stepped in was criticizing NASCAR. There's lots of insider bitching going on, but if you are an outsider - you don't do that. The faithful do not put up with that.
I agree. He's worn out his welcome by being such a snob all the time.
I mostly agree - although auto racing, especially NASCAR and Indy, isn't all that interesting these days.
In fact, when I was a kid, I gave up on Indy racing. I was getting really interested, and I was super impressed with the STP Turbocar. This thing was putting the piston cars to shame, but a 6 dollar gearbox bearing failure cost it the race.
So what did USAC do? First they limited the engine intake area to 24 inches. But the plucky little turbo, despite a acceleration time lag, could still produce lots of ponies. So in the spirit of technology, the USAC then limited the intake to 16 inches, and imposed the ruling immediately, rather than the 2 year notice normally given, and killed the Turbocar.
It was so freakin' cool, and the bastards killed it because the piston engines couldn't compete with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Looking back, I think that might be the foundations of my cynicism and why I like EV's so much. Technology that earns such hatred must be on to something.
And NASCAR demands that all the cars be about as identical as possible, giving rise to the 200 mph traffic jam effect. Yeah, that's fun.
And in the spirit of that..... 6.94 seconds at 201 mph on an electric bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Big Daddy Don Garlits isn't afraid of technology at age 82.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
anyhow, they aren't 100 percent related to this other than that I believe that Indy and NASCAR are anti competitive, and it's fun to see people doing it differently. Hell that's half the excitement. They're here just for fun
I stopped reading when he described a catenary as a parabola
Yeah, what a dumbass.
Everyone knows a catenary is a little yellow bird.
Oh, and I forgot to comment on the fact that I absolutely do not believe you that movies have become more realistic over the years. At all. Because they haven't.
Don't you miss the car going off a cliff and always bursting into flames? A staple of 70's movies and TV.
I remember for a while, the Simpson's would spoof that - the best one was when a baby carriage rolled down some steps, fell over, and blew up.
Making that pile of crap "realistic" wouldn't have helped. But really, how realistic can you make a movie about a gigantic lizard?
Realistic isn't even the point of the Godzilla movies. They are camp they are more comedy than scifi.
Godzilla should never be other than a guy in a rubber suit.
It's funny, one of my son's vivid memories is sitting with me watching Son of Godzilla, perhaps the funniest one of all. Gojira as a doting dad - doesn't get much better than that.
Right. So where is the "surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD), hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture".
Sounds like a modern day Frat party.
I have seen an ad for a drug on one of the national tv channels then immediately following that commercial was a lawyer commercial, advertising that if you'd taken THE SAME DRUG IN THE PREVIOUS COMMERCIAL and had experienced the listed side effects, you should call "1-800-BADDRUG", and you might be entitled to substantial compensation... All I could do was shake my head at this.. I wonder if the station/network got their asses chewed for that slipup.....
I think that is the television version ot the internt's Tailored web experience.
Wind turbines are giant mixing blades. Downstream from a turbine there are turbulent vortexes that mix with higher layers of air, renewing the wind speed at ground level. That's why a wind farm spaces the turbines about 5 diameters apart, to allow time for the mixing.
Yes, turbines extract some energy from the wind, and slow it down a bit, but they do so from a thicker layer of air than they are tall, and wind speeds at higher altitudes are faster than at ground level. Hills and trees produce friction, and slow down surface winds.
Awesome! Perpetual motion, and free energy extraction. Quick - To Youtube!
"he'll be calling for attacks on London"
Nah, not enough oil there.
Cymbal crash!
They will extract energy from the wind, that much is true. There has to be some local measureable effect of a tiny bit less wind, because the energy changed form
If that were true, there'd already be some measurable impact on the wind from ships with tall sails, surely?
The effect has to be minuscule. But since you are taking wind, and removing energy form it, it will have an effect
In an open market the advertisers would realize this, and make their ads more attractive. The FDA prevents them from doing so, and prevents advertisers from offering offshore sources, even of the same compounds.
As much as I would like to believe that, advertising in general is screaming Look at me! Look at me! The only real regulation on the medicine side is that they have to spend a lot of time telling you the side effects, which is alittle off putting. The Lawyers? The people trying to get you to give up an annuity for some instant cash? They are pretty much unfettered, at least in advertising.
And that's pretty much why I'm saying that there are other factors at work here. Where they are at now - it isn't working, and there is a competitor in town. The intertoobz. So some of the big players like Comcast, they have a vested interest in having people buy their television service. And people are cutting that cable to the point that they are really concerned.
You would need ridiculous numbers of turbines just to slow down the breeze in a general area a little bit, so that area might be a little warmer locally because cooler air isn't pushing through, or warmer air, or something.
Do you mean like this? NASA Satellite Measurements Imply Texas Wind Farm Impact on Surface Temperature
Interesting stuff. I hadn't considered pulling warm air from upper air to the surface at night. In the end though that is a redistribution issue. But looks like the energy extraction transfer issue is indeed very small.