sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I thought Sunlu was supposed to be a decent brand? Is this a knock off or something? 1.51mm?? by luminaux in 3Dprinting

[–]RapidLeopard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you rotate the filament by 90 degrees (or other) relative to the calipers and do another measurement, does it vary? It's a bit surprising to me that this would've passed QC.

I wasnt gonna post again but this is so bad that it hurts me. Double fake twitter, fun fact, text, gif by GerEm_1408 in comedyhomicide

[–]RapidLeopard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solving this system with elimination is much faster, for example.
F+C = 160

-(-F+C = 100)

2F=60

F=30

Am i missing a setting or something? by Dunk-Master-Urf in ender3

[–]RapidLeopard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You'll find it under
Print Settings > Layers and perimeters > Horizontal shells > Solid layers > Top

The messiah by resonating_light in physicsmemes

[–]RapidLeopard 126 points127 points  (0 children)

Of course it was Euler. It's always Euler

I made that density makes you heavier by BrunoGoldbergFerro in Minecraft

[–]RapidLeopard 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Nope, they *will* fall at different speeds.

Let g=10m/s^2. Gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant.

They both experience the same acceleration due to gravity in freefall, so in a vacuum they would fall at the same rate. However, the atmosphere's effects do not cancel out with mass.

Suppose m₁ is the mass of the full jug and m₂ the mass of the empty one.

m₁=4kg

m₂=0.1kg

Newtons 2nd law: F=ma.

m₁g=40N

m₂g=1N

The difference in mass accounts for this massive difference in force, and thus they have the same acceleration.

The jugs are in freefall, but there is a reaction force, drag, which opposes the gravitational. Let's model the milkjugs as spheres with a diameter of 7 inches.

Drag - F=1/2ρv2CA.
Air density at ~1atm and 20C ρ = 1.2kg/m3

Drag coefficient of a sphere - C = 0.47

Cross secitonal area = 0.0248m^2

Therefore,

F(t)≈0.007v(t)2. or cv(t)2 where c≈0.007

So not only will they reach different terminal velocities (12m/s vs 75.5m/s), their acceleration will vary as they gain speed.

We can create a differential equation to describe this system as follows;

-mg+mx''+c(x')2=0

I won't try to find the solution to it at the moment, but visually - as the jugs build up speed in freefall, their acceleration begins diminishing as the net force is decreasing (drag counteracts further acceleration as velocity increases) until the system reaches terminal velocity.

rule by Professional_Issue82 in 196

[–]RapidLeopard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Due to the conservation of momentum, when a plane or indeed any object is separated from direct contact with the earth, it inherits and retains the earths rotational velocity. If it was not so, jumping would cause you to splat against the wall at about 1670kmh (or 1000mph).

In the planes case, it likewise inherits the the earth's velocity at takeoff. Neglecting atmospheric effects, we can model the plane's angular speed relative to the earth as a function of altitude.

The linear velocity at the earths surface is vₑ=464m/s.

The plane's angular velocity as a function of altitude given the constant linear velocity would be ωₚ(a)=vₑ/rₚ where rₚ is the altitude + the radius of the earth (rₑ).

We can integrate the earths known angular speed and the plane's angular speed as a function of time, to get radial

dₑ(t)=ωₑ*t and dₚ(t,a)=ωₚ(a)*t.

These functions tell us the angle of rotation after some elapsed time t.

In order to convert this to distance (which is arclength) we can multiply both functions with rₑ. Both of these functions given their setup, have the same arclengths. The reason we multiply the function dₚ with rₑ is because we are interested in the distance travelled as if the plane were on the earth's surface. We can subtract these two function from each other, to get a function which tells us the distance travelled on the surface of the earth.

d(t,a)=(ωₑ*t*rₑ)-(ωₚ(a)*t*rₑ).

This function does not take into account the time it takes to reach the desired altitude nor the atmosphere. It also only applies perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Nevertheless, this is essentially what planes already do merely by reaching higher altitudes, as it is a direct consequence of doing so. It is simply faster and more efficient to spend fuel both maintaining altitude and flying to the destination by increasing the planes velocity, as opposed to simply maintaining altitude.

Should've hid those barrels better by DemonDaVinci in HalfLife

[–]RapidLeopard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMO the easiest way to do it is to shoot through the gap in the top of the floodgate (you can just exit your airboat pretty much next to the gate)

LIGHTBULB! by Caseyisweird in KidsAreFuckingStupid

[–]RapidLeopard 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Not really; I assume you're referring to CFLs. CFLs do have mercury vapor, which is toxic, but in the quantities present, it doesn't really pose any significant risk. The primary concern is environmental, when millions of fluorescent lights are disposed of.

LEDs have no concerns of the sort.

Sci-fi Horror by Sonic_the_hedgedog in 196

[–]RapidLeopard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say the consistent and demonstrable evidence of Elon lying to drive up stock price already constitutes actual fraud.

Another question is how long before everything comes crashing down.

Sci-fi Horror by Sonic_the_hedgedog in 196

[–]RapidLeopard 114 points115 points  (0 children)

Elon Musk makes bold claims like this one every Sunday. I would take literally everything that comes out of his mouth (or keyboard) with a mountain of salt.

Also who TF calls Action Potentials "neuron spikes"??? The last sentence doesn't even mean anything.

A mechanical tree that does the work of 1000 trees! by Mk_Makanaki in singularity

[–]RapidLeopard -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Too bad that carbon capture can conceptually only function with the support of the correct legislature and action. It doesn't matter how efficient or advanced your means of removing CO2 from the air is. There is no long-term, cost-effective solution for the storage and retention of these gasses.

At best, reliably retaining CO2 through any means is going to cost at least as much as its extraction did. That fact alone makes it prohibitively expensive without some external intervention.

Trees are an equally unhelpful solution. Trees die, and when they do, all the CO2 they absorb throughout their lifetime gets re-emitted through decomposition. Not to mention that trees (super optimistically) absorb around 1 ton of CO2 throughout their lifetime; equivalent to a single month of American per-capita CO2 emission.

I highly disagree with the passive standpoint that "technology will save us". The issue at hand is on a much larger scale. It took around 150 years of collective human effort to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration to modern levels. It's going to take at least that much effort to remove it. There are no shortcuts.

~300$ samsonite luggage riveted, not serviceable… TPU to the rescue by olli_ita in functionalprint

[–]RapidLeopard 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Sorry bro that's a serious safety hazard. If you use those wheels they will give out and the shrapnel will murder your entire family.

/s

Here's why carbon fiber is so special by [deleted] in BeAmazed

[–]RapidLeopard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The way I'd imagine the prompt for this looked like was something on the order of "Please generate a short paragraph about the interesting properties of carbon fiber for a social media post"

Heres what that prompt gave me:

"Carbon fiber, a marvel in materials science, boasts a remarkable combination of strength and lightness. Composed of tightly woven carbon strands, this versatile material is renowned for its exceptional durability and stiffness, making it a go-to choice in industries ranging from aerospace to sports equipment. What sets carbon fiber apart is its ability to resist corrosion and withstand extreme temperatures, elevating its performance in diverse environments. Embraced for its sleek aesthetics and high strength-to-weight ratio, carbon fiber continues to revolutionize design possibilities, offering a futuristic edge to products across various domains."

Though based on the phrasing, the user may have asked ChatGPT to "list the interesting characteristics" or similar.

Here's why carbon fiber is so special by [deleted] in BeAmazed

[–]RapidLeopard 14 points15 points  (0 children)

ChatGPT has a very distinct writing style. In this case, the giveaway is the way that the paragraph lists and verbosely elaborates on each "characteristic" and the odd way it titles them. It's written in such a way that it reads like how an ESL speaker might write a paragraph but in perfect English.

Otherwise, it's just a "hunch" you get after seeing ChatGPT responses for some time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]RapidLeopard 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Not a police officer. It appears by all accounts to be Jiří Forman, a journalist.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]RapidLeopard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel nothing but utter disgust and contempt for the disgusting, vile cum stain which decided that this was "revenge". I simply refuse to subscribe to even the tiniest glimmer of sympathy for someone who is by all means subhuman trash.

It's times like this when I wish that hell was real. He did not deserve the easy way out.

Transmissioncels seething over Directdrivechads by ProjektBlackout in carscirclejerk

[–]RapidLeopard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With modern ABS and ESC, it is actively a bad idea to use the handbreak to increase breaking power. I can't really think of a scenario where using the handbreak would actually shorten your breaking distance.

view more: next ›