The stupid questions thread.

Steve-0

Steve-0

Likes Bikes and Dirt
What about the Sauna world championships were they all ended up with burns and one died?

Considering the amount of water in the human body, you WOULD burn in 100 degree air. Might take a little longer, but you will.
 
Registered Nutcase

Registered Nutcase

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Steve-0 said:
What about the Sauna world championships were they all ended up with burns and one died?

Considering the amount of water in the human body, you WOULD burn in 100 degree air. Might take a little longer, but you will.
Click to expand...
My understanding from working in an abbitor is that flesh burns instantly at anything over 88 degrees. If the water in your body got to 100 degrees you would be steaming your own body!
 
Ruys

Ruys

Likes Dirt
While I don't agree that 100 degree air wont burn you, 100 degree water (steam) will burn you heaps quicker. It's got to do with something called latent heat.

Basically as you heat water it will continue to increase in temperature as you transfer energy into it until it reaches 100 degrees. Once at 100 it stays there while you have to pump in a whole lot more energy before it gets and hotter and makes the phase transformation into steam. When this is working in reverse your body absorbs all the energy released as steam converts back to water.
 
for those about to rock

for those about to rock

Likes Dirt
Ryan H said:
Are there other colors outside te visible light spectrum that humans can not see?
Click to expand...
Coulours is a hard title to give them, as they can only be seen via means other than eyes. In most images with filters to view and detect other than visible light, the light is given a colour in post processing to accentuate its presence. These images can also be used in conjunction with visible light to give better pictures. I'm no physicist, but I'd say any light other than visible, would be white rather than a colour. You could just simply say that because we can't see them, we can't associate a colour with certain wavelengths so no, there is no other colours. But I could be wrong.
 
PINT of Stella. mate!

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
When Triple J's 'The Doctor' discusses the availability of his show online and commands us to podcast the shit out of it!, does that mean there is an option to remove all of his f***ing annoying drivel?
 
hach_bee

hach_bee

Likes Bikes and Dirt
This is one I've thought about for a bit, but having no great background in physics/math post high school I wasn't 100%... Would a car travelling at say, 110km/hr over a car travelling at 100km/hr at the same rate as one overtaking a car doing 60km/hr at 70km/hr itself?

So pretty much does the same gap in speed equal the same rate over overtaking?
 
wespelarno

wespelarno

Likes Dirt
hach_bee said:
This is one I've thought about for a bit, but having no great background in physics/math post high school I wasn't 100%... Would a car travelling at say, 110km/hr over a car travelling at 100km/hr at the same rate as one overtaking a car doing 60km/hr at 70km/hr itself?

So pretty much does the same gap in speed equal the same rate over overtaking?
Click to expand...
Yes, same gap in terms of time. However, because the 100/110km/h cars are moving much faster they will travel further in the same time, so you will need more space to overtake in.

Stupid question: I have about 5 days to kill in alabama. WTF is there to do is alabama? Specifically, orange beach alabama. And please don't say enjoy the culture, cause they are a bunch of confederates
 
Minlak

Minlak

custom titis
hach_bee said:
This is one I've thought about for a bit, but having no great background in physics/math post high school I wasn't 100%... Would a car travelling at say, 110km/hr over a car travelling at 100km/hr at the same rate as one overtaking a car doing 60km/hr at 70km/hr itself?

So pretty much does the same gap in speed equal the same rate over overtaking?
Click to expand...
Ivan said:
Yes.......
Click to expand...
wespelarno said:
Yes, same gap in terms of time. However, because the 100/110km/h cars are moving much faster they will travel further in the same time, so you will need more space to overtake in.
Click to expand...
Im going to go with NO!!!

At 100km/h a car is travelling at 27.77777 m/s car A
At 110km/h a car is travelling at 30.5555 m/s car B

So lets say the cars are 20 Metres apart and you want to be 5 metres in front of the car to pull back in

Car B is travelling 2.777 m/s faster than car a

so in 12 secs:-
Car A has traveled 333.333 metres
Car B has travelled 366.666 metres
So car B has traveled a further 33.33 metres than Car A in 12 secs

So would take 12 secs allowing for a car 3 metres long for car b to pass with no change in either speed and safely pull in front

At 60km/h a car is travelling at 16.666666 m/s Car D
At 70km/h a car is travelling at 19.44444 m/s Car E

So travelling for 12 secs :-
Car D has traveled 199.9999 metres
Car E has travelled 233.3333 metres
Car E has travelled a further 33.88 metres

So in fact it would quicker to over take a car doing 60 and your doing 70 than a car doing 100 and your doing 110 by approx .5 sec :)


Now its all good in theory however we know this will never be the case as every PRICK!!! speeds up when you try and pass
 
Steve-0

Steve-0

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Minlak I think that 0.5s comes from conversion and rounding errors. 10km/h is still 10km/h regardless of base speed.
 
Minlak

Minlak

custom titis
Steve-0 said:
Minlak I think that 0.5s comes from conversion and rounding errors. 10km/h is still 10km/h regardless of base speed.
Click to expand...
Honestly my math skills completely abandoned me towards the end and after i spent so much time and effort typing it out i said fuck it im just pressing submit :)

Im pretty sure your correct in your assumption :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top