How is it possible that he neglected to include eclipses?
Yes, I hate this too. I find myself silently screaming at the other drivers to: “TAKE YOUR RIGHT-OF-WAY!!!”
On a related note, just this morning, I was in the right lane of the highway as a car started to merge onto the highway and into my lane. I couldn’t move over to the center or left lane because there were two semi-trailer trucks in the other two lanes (which is its own issue, but I digress).
So I take my foot off the gas so he can safely merge into my lane. What does this genius do? He sees me, gets nervous, and slows down instead of accelerating! I realize there is no way I can get past him before he runs out of merge lane. The he realizes the same thing and abruptly cuts into my lane right in front of me going about 15-20 mph. Up to that moment I had expected him to accelerate onto the highway, and by the time I realized what he was doing I had to slam on my brakes to keep from rear-ending him. (Yes, I realize I would have been at fault.) And the car behind me nearly rear-ended me.
However, the whole issue could have been avoided if he had simply taken merged onto the highway and taken his right-of-way. He was ahead of me, after all. When this all started he had plenty of room to safely merge and I even slowed down a bit so he could do so.
Not sure where on the chart it would go. I guess you could technically chase it, even though you already know the path.
I just went through this last month. You’re trying to find the best viewing location that avoids cloud cover and obstructions (like trees) and crowds…and has available parking.
Over the course of our drive north to the path of totality, I changed our intended viewing location three times because of clouds that were predicted to come in from the west.
I was also on the phone (and texting) with a friend as we each drove north to Vermont and/or New Hampshire. Even though we started off in different states, we each ended up only five miles away from each other to see the eclipse.
It’s even worse when you’re on a bike and SO MANY times people slam to a stop, narrowly avoiding being rear-ended, just so they can wave the bicyclist across the road.
Look, if I do, I’ll get creamed by the cars in the next lane who can’t see me, and the do-gooder is holding up a line of cars (last time it was a dozen commuters trying to get home during rush hour).
I’ve been known to yell "Go! GO! You have one job, DRIVE YOUR CAR!"
Yes, it’s all “elementary”. /insane laughter
We watch dashcam videos and it’s a staple there, but usually someone stopping short to let a driver turn left into a driveway – who gets nailed by someone in the outside lane.
Just tosave everyone the bother:
I was just trying to think of Bloom filters. I came up with HyperLogLog, which is an entirely different kind of probabilistic data structure, intended to only count the number of distinct elements in your set, and not determine if a specific element is in the set (though see now that Bloom filters are mentioned in the sidebar). Thanks, xkcd.
That really deserves a What If? I have zero intuition as to whether a stable loop of water that size is plausible. Though I am 98% certain that the outlet would completely scour the ocean floor and that it would have to be made of something much more sturdy than rock.
Assuming that ship is 1000’, or 300 m, long (a typical large ocean cruiser), the radius of the loop is around 500 m. Using the simplistic equation for minimum speed needed to stay in the loop = sqrt(rg), you get 70 m/s, or 160 mph, at the top of the loop. That’s quite a current.
That’s a start. But at this scale, you also need to account for the water slowing down due to gravity. A fountain would need to start at ~140 m/s to reach a height of 1000 m. That’s not purely additive with the other figure, but it’s definitely going to raise the threshold.
It’s a modern take on Charybdis. Not only will the output scour the ocean floor, but the intake would be catastrophic. I expect the waste heat from the power source would likely boil the water going through.
It’s definitely not plausible. Since when has that ever stopped Munroe?
That’s easily solvable by putting it at the bottom of a waterfall. Route the flow into the loop and gravity will provide the initial velocity.
I suppose it would have been more accurate to say physical. It’s perfectly ok to assume that the pump is powered by every power plant on the planet. But it’s not ok to ignore, say, the viscosity of water if it’ll boil while going around the loop.
I’ll give a pass for assuming the loop is made from scrith since the topic of interest lies elsewhere.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Though I don’t think there are any fundamental limits to how low the friction could be between the water and the walls of the loop.
It’s not just friction with the loop, though. If the water all started at the same (linear) speed, then the layer closest to the center will have a greater angular velocity than the parts farther from the center, since it represents a shorter distance. Ok, so maybe you can design the pump to output at just the right velocity for each layer… but gravity is slowing the water as it travels up the side, and that’s a linear reduction in speed, not a proportional reduction. So the velocity will mismatch again as it goes up the side. It will also bunch up somewhat since water is incompressible and the cross-sectional area times the velocity has to be constant.
Maybe it’s possible to create a curve that accounts for this. But also, the water in general needs to have some angular velocity as it goes around. I don’t think there’s a way to do this without turbulence. There are just too many constraints on the solution.
An ocean liner of 300m typically has a width of 60m and requires a depth of minimum 7.5 m - say that the depth of the water is 10 m. That gives the loop a characteristic length of 17.1 m.
The Reynolds number will then be (1000 kg/m3 · 70 m/s · 17.1 m)/0.001 Pa·s = 1.2·10^9
Already at Re > 1·10^5 we’re well into the tubulent flow regime. so yes: there will be some turbulence.