exchemist

You can still see some wisps of what may be down on the head of the bird in the video.

I found this image on the web which is almost identical and is described as a juvenile starling: The slightly screechy call also reminds me of the juvenile starlings we had nesting in a tree in our garden when we lived in Houston. So that would be my best guess as to what it is.

But presumably one can’t attribute the health benefits of these vegetables entirely to the NO that may be produced, via interaction with nitrate-reducing bacteria. My understanding is that vegetables in the diet protect against these cardiovascular conditions via a number of effects, ranging from more fibre that promotes excretion of more bile acids derived from cholesterol, to antioxidant compounds, sources of vitamins, etc.

Looks to me like a juvenile, from the yellow interior of the beak and its behaviour. That makes it harder to identify, as distinctive markings may not be fully developed. But I’m not a bird expert.

Seeing as there is a clear risk of accidental swallowing, I find it inconceivable that a dangerous poison like methanol would be used.

Pity about your second sentence. The first is undoubtedly correct.

Transmission losses for electric transmission will be nearer 20% I should think.

I think this is very well expressed. +1

All valid points, but you will still expend considerably more energy (perhaps 30-40% more) on this machine to get from A to B than on a conventional bike, due to the combined transmission losses and the extra weight of motors, generator and battery.

Sure, creep in solids is a recognised phenomenon. That does not make the solid state an illusion, though.

Eh? Surely this does not mean the solid state is an “illusion” but that pitch behaves as a viscous liquid rather than as a solid?

c is the speed of light specifically, and E=mc2 refers to rest mass specifically, so it is not appropriate to your problem. All you need is the de Broglie relation of momentum to wavelength, which you show on the right of your picture. (The full Einstein formula, bringing in momentum (p) for objects in motion relative to a frame of reference, is E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2. For a massless entity such as a photon this reduces to E=pc, which if you apply E=hv gives you de Broglie’s relation.)

Interesting. However I’d have thought, based on what I understand of diesel-electric traction, that this would incur significantly higher losses than a mechanical, i.e. chain or belt, drive. Perhaps with a battery, i.e. as a rechargeable hybrid, this could be overcome, but at the cost of needing to charge the battery periodically from an external source. I don’t think I’m persuaded that this would be a great idea, though I must admit getting rid of the chain, with all its attendant problems, might be attractive.

OK so in your design there won’t be a chain between the pedals and the wheels, i.e. the whole transmission would be electric? That may be new.

OK, then let’s pursue this a bit. Where is the motor, and will it also function as a regenerative brake? Just looked on line and some bikes have regenerative braking: https://intermountainbikes.com/which-electric-bikes-have-regenerative-braking/

Look, I’m sorry to seem harsh, but all you have done is propose a motor, a battery, pedals and some kind of unspecified regenerative braking, controlled, in some undefined way, by a computer. Do you really think saying just that is enough to constitute a design?

No shit! How?

At present you show 2 sources of mechanical power ( motor and pedals) and 2 sources of electricity( regen brakes - which by the way implies another generator and/or motor which is not mentioned - and a battery) connected, not to the wheels, but to a computer. That makes no sense unless you want to fry its circuits. So far you are not describing a design or even a concept. Where is the motor? Is it in the hub of a wheel to drive it directly, or somewhere else? If the latter how is it connected to the powered wheel? Is the generator that provides the regen braking the same motor, or a different machine? And so on.

You’ve left out the wheels.

My thoughts are that you seem to be an AI robot, adding no value to the forum with your bland and obvious contributions.

Gosh I remember him from “Tomorrow’s World” in the 1960s. With Raymond Baxter.

I find deGrasse Tyson a bit glib and the level of Cox’s explanations seems to be for 11yr olds - a sad reflection of the assumption in the British media that nobody in the population knows any science, even though we all learn a fair bit in school and many people take it further. (British media seems run by arts graduates , quite unlike say France where the prestigious grands ecoles were founded by Napoleon to study science and engineering.)Cox is also a bit annoying, somehow, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on. Kaku seems to be a bit nuts, but I don’t really know much about him. Sagan was far better than any of them I think. I quite like Sabine Hossenfelder on physics.

I think Wiki is in general a good quick or introductory source for a lot of things. However you do need to apply your critical faculties, especially when what you reading seems poorly worded, unclear or contradictory, and you need to cross-reference before relying on it. Also , on any topic that is known to be contentious, you need to be aware of potential for bias. The references are a valuable source of ideas for further reading.

Then reality may not be local. That does not make it less real.

I don’t see how any reproducible phenomenon of nature can fail to be due to something physically and objectively real in nature. You can’t make a model without something for it to be a model of, surely?