I’m pretty ignorant on human hearing and hearing damage but my understanding is that hearing damage from loud noise is caused when a loud sound mechanically vibrates little hairs in your inner ear and the product of the magnitude and duration of that vibration is high enough to cause damage.
Noise cancellation stops or reduces the magnitude of that vibration. So I have to disagree, I don’t think noise cancellation would cause more damage in the way you’re describing.
I didn’t read the whole article but from what I read it sounds like it’s a brain issue not a physiological one.
Also ignorant here, but if you want a body to stay at rest, you can either not push it at all, or push it with the same force from both sides. If you’re pushing from both sides, the body won’t move, but the forces acting on it can still crush it, deform it, and otherwise damage it.
I don’t know if this would be a factor at this scale.
I suspect the absolute pressure required to crush a hair would be measured in MPa, orders of magnitude more than the pressure difference from a sound level that would kill you. The damage probably comes from the vibration ripping apart nerves cells at the base of the hair, but again that’s speculation on my part. So no vibration, no damage.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if aircraft can generally slow down faster than trains, assuming level flight and grade (or the same climb rate)
It’s not really fair though, because the aircraft has so much force acting against it from how fast it’s moving. If somehow a jet was moving at train speeds and could only use its aerodynamic surfaces to slow down, it would probably take a while.
Oh man yeah the advice about continuous motion is not right. A clutch is a torque control device, in the case of a car it’s more like a torque limiting device. The more you let the pedal out the more torque you allow the engine to apply to the wheels up until the point where the torque you allow exceeds the engine’s available torque at a given rpm and throttle position. So if you’re constantly letting the clutch out you’re ramping up the torque limit linearly but the engine speed and wheel speed don’t match and if the engine speed is low of course the engine can easily stall.
Instead what you want to do, what most people do subconsciously is let the clutch out partially until it is allowing the engine to apply some of its available torque but not all, and then pause there until the car’s speed roughly matches the engine speed, at which point the clutch will stop slipping even though you still have the pedal partially depressed, after which you should be able to rapidly raise your foot from the clutch and feel no acceleration or deceleration. For an experienced driver that pause is less than like half a second from standstill. Also technically the point at which you want to pause the clutch let out depends on a whole bunch of things like how quickly you want to pull off, how much torque the engine can provide and whether you’re on a hill etc, but we just do this intuitively with experience.
This is like a super over-complicated way to think about it and I would never try to teach a learner driver by first explaining this lol but the point is, you find the engagement point and hold there for a while and then release when the car is moving. This is what we all do but it helps to understand why we do it so we don’t explain things wrong.
I feel like people also don’t get what applying more throttle does while the clutch is slipping. All it does is raise the engine rpm, it will apply absolutely no more torque (and therefore acceleration) no matter how much you press down the throttle. While the clutch is slipping the clutch pedal controls your torque and therefore acceleration. You need some throttle though to give you some room for error and some minimum torque to work with.
The funny thing is when I first started learning to drive, it seemed impossible to get right without stalling or bunny-hopping or something else going wrong. Yet now after years of driving it feels like there's a huge window of acceptable throttle and clutch. Apply tons or throttle or hardly any. Release the clutch carefully or quickly. Car always starts great. There must be so much muscle memory magic to it. I don't think I could bunny-hop the car anymore if I tried.
Let's not forget modern cars have "throttle adaptations" and will automatically compensate for the driver's lack of throttle input. If you just release the clutch pedal slowly, the engine will rev itself enough not to stall and the car will start moving.
I've also noticed you can release all pedals while driving these days and instead of eventually slowing to a stall, the car will only slow until it's happily rolling along in gear at some sort of very slow minimum speed. I presume that's the same feature?
Pretty much any non-carbureted car should do that. All fuel injected cars have some mechanism for controlling idle, which involves some kind of valve bypassing the throttle (for mechanical throttle linkages) or just directly actuating the throttle blades (for drive-by-wire systems). There should be enough travel in the idle circuit to allow a tiny opening to keep idle low enough once the engine is warm, and a large enough opening to keep idle high enough to prevent stalling when the transmission is engaged.
Release the clutches linearly in half a second with the engine at 1k rpm and bunny hop away lol
But you’re totally right. You can pull away quickly by letting your rpm build up and choosing an aggressive clutch position while applying enough throttle to keep the rpm constant, alternatively in most cars you can pull away on a fairly steep hill with no throttle if you just barely let the clutch engage and hold it at that point until the car is moving steadily
While your concern is still totally valid, if a civilian mistakes a 747 for a drone and shoots at it with anything but a laser, they’re gonna miss lol. It will probably be out of range in fact.
In other words, if you’re within 1km (0.6 miles) of a large passenger jet, you’re absolutely not mistaking it for a drone.
You clearly haven't seen the videos of people that are just clearly observing large passenger jets coming for a landing for a drone. Also, they probably will miss, but that bullet is landing somewhere. A plane coming in for a landing pass was just shot at (and hit) recently in Haiti, so it's not impossible.
Maybe the article had a different headline and they didn’t read the actual article? I’m baffled how some could read that incredibly short article and come away with any assertion about what the pentagon thinks about the balloon other than that it can collect ”intelligence data”
‘Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder said on Thursday that the US was "aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities".
But "it has been our assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or over flying the United States".’
When did the pentagon confirm it was not a spy balloon? The article is very short and the meaning is clear, it doesn’t say anything about whether the pentagon thinks it’s a spy balloon.
I agree that sensors could mean anything, and so could “intelligence data” but just because the positive was not confirmed “It’s a spy balloon” doesn’t mean that the negative was confirmed “It’s not a spy balloon”. Personally I am unconvinced either way and actually don’t care whether or not it was a spy balloon, my point is that the bbc article absolutely does not say that the pentagon thinks it wasn’t a spy balloon.
Also keep in mind the US military isn’t necessarily going to be honest about what they think the balloon is and how much they can discern about its purpose.
Some people have the most bizarre hobbies. From photographing bigfoot to ufo's or planespotters. I dont intend to understand all of them but photographing drones might be one of the more moral ones in this century. Just imagine drones filming your living room, or military installations like feared in the article. Having someone record such incidents is appreciated.
Oh yeah I totally get having a niche hobby. I’ve personally considered starting a collection of photos of modified 90s Japanese cars. I take photos all the time of my cat with a “pro” camera but that doesn’t make me a professional cat photographer. Now if I were making money from it on the other hand…
I would be amazed if there’s enough of a demand for drone photos to support someone
I don’t know anything about sodium based batteries but sodium itself is a serious fire danger. Sodium is explosive in water, more so than lithium I believe.
Noise cancellation stops or reduces the magnitude of that vibration. So I have to disagree, I don’t think noise cancellation would cause more damage in the way you’re describing.
I didn’t read the whole article but from what I read it sounds like it’s a brain issue not a physiological one.