Author Topic: Episode #719  (Read 1122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1826
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #719
« on: April 20, 2019, 01:05:33 PM »
News Items: FDA on GMO Labeling, Tabletop Fusion, Light Pollution, Another Mars Bacteria Claim, Biosynthetic Computer; Who’s That Noisy; Your Questions and E-mails: Flying Cars; Name That Logical Fallacy; Science or Fiction
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline elert

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • The Physics Hypertextbook
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2019, 04:25:39 PM »
The mathematician's name Euler is pronounced like "oiler".

Offline wormguy

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • Wormguy
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2019, 12:56:32 AM »
Hiya,

Regarding flying car noise, while electric is nice, it's not necessary and maybe not preferable due to energy density limitations. I fly Robinson R22 helicopters which came about as a designer's intent on commuter helicopter (and the most common in the world, 6000).  The noise (115 dB at 5 m, normally flown above 1000' (333 m) by law) doesn't come from the engine but the tail rotor (mostly) and main rotor vortices.  So combining high energy density of diesel and smaller, different rotor systems (like ducted fans) might be a better option.  My primary point is that the noise doesn't come from the engine much, mostly aerodynamics.

Cheers,
Brian

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2019, 03:19:05 AM »
Hiya,

Regarding flying car noise, while electric is nice, it's not necessary and maybe not preferable due to energy density limitations. I fly Robinson R22 helicopters which came about as a designer's intent on commuter helicopter (and the most common in the world, 6000).  The noise (115 dB at 5 m, normally flown above 1000' (333 m) by law) doesn't come from the engine but the tail rotor (mostly) and main rotor vortices.  So combining high energy density of diesel and smaller, different rotor systems (like ducted fans) might be a better option.  My primary point is that the noise doesn't come from the engine much, mostly aerodynamics.

Cheers,
Brian

An electric R44 demonstration, l-o-u-d



« Last Edit: April 21, 2019, 12:37:02 PM by DevoutCatalyst »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4825
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2019, 02:28:50 PM »
Hiya,

Regarding flying car noise, while electric is nice, it's not necessary and maybe not preferable due to energy density limitations. I fly Robinson R22 helicopters which came about as a designer's intent on commuter helicopter (and the most common in the world, 6000).  The noise (115 dB at 5 m, normally flown above 1000' (333 m) by law) doesn't come from the engine but the tail rotor (mostly) and main rotor vortices.  So combining high energy density of diesel and smaller, different rotor systems (like ducted fans) might be a better option.  My primary point is that the noise doesn't come from the engine much, mostly aerodynamics.

Cheers,
Brian

Having spent a lot of time (years) outside turban helicopters, loading and unloading skis for my clients, refuelling, and general equipment handling, I think the scream of the engine(s) is the source of the worst noise. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7037
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2019, 04:50:55 PM »
Hiya,

Regarding flying car noise, while electric is nice, it's not necessary and maybe not preferable due to energy density limitations. I fly Robinson R22 helicopters which came about as a designer's intent on commuter helicopter (and the most common in the world, 6000).  The noise (115 dB at 5 m, normally flown above 1000' (333 m) by law) doesn't come from the engine but the tail rotor (mostly) and main rotor vortices.  So combining high energy density of diesel and smaller, different rotor systems (like ducted fans) might be a better option.  My primary point is that the noise doesn't come from the engine much, mostly aerodynamics.

Cheers,
Brian



It is possible the fan noise can be dramatically reduced with existing metamaterials.

https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/researchers-develop-acoustic-metamaterial-noise-cancellation-device/

evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline wormguy

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • Wormguy
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2019, 10:48:01 PM »
Having spent a lot of time (years) outside turban helicopters, loading and unloading skis for my clients, refuelling, and general equipment handling, I think the scream of the engine(s) is the source of the worst noise.

Yes, we agree that turbines are very loud, directionally so in fact. As an example; 5 m in front of an As350 B2 the sound level is lower than 5 m in front of a small piston R22, while to the side and behind, much louder. Drop the engine noise and you'd still have the loud aerodynamic noise. Turbine aircraft, however, are not currently in the running for practical flying car systems any more than riding baby mammoths with jetpacks. I suspect that the commuter aircraft (e.g. flying car) is competition between two hard problems; the cost of maintenance of mechanical systems which take advantage of high energy density petrol (piston or turbine aircraft) and the lack of energy density for simpler electrical systems. Many industrial solutions have hybridised by using petrochemicals to generate power, but the weight of those systems and differences in skill sets probably have kept them from crossing over into hybridised commuter aircraft.   

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8190
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2019, 04:03:04 PM »
Why are they talking about the effects and uses of "flying cars" as if this were a hypothetical when for all practical purposes they're just talking about helicopters, which we have now, and which are practical and useful in certain applications?

Even using the term "flying car" is grossly misleading and clouds the waters. We're talking about affordable VTOL craft, which is to say, helicopters that cost a tenth to a fifteenth of current ones. I would not be surprised if the cost of helicopters comes down. It sure ain't gonna come down to a tenth of the present-day cost. So the whole discussion is moot.

There are air-taxi services today. If you can pay, you can take a helicopter. Calling them flying cars just gives the mistaken impression that you expect them to suddenly come down in price to what you'd pay for a car, and that the typical car driver could operate one. The former is not going to happen within 50 years, and probably won't ever; and the latter is 20 to 40 years away.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online Skepmic

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2019, 05:01:50 PM »
Lobbying efforts by the supplement industry get rightly criticized. But talk of "Big Pharma" is immediately made to sound conspiratorial. The latter must outspend the former by orders of magnitude when it comes to lobbying.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10665
Episode #719
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2019, 05:40:31 PM »
The words “big pharma” do not in and of themselves constitute a logical fallacy. But they can be used in making fallacious arguments.


The price of insulin (and numerous other drugs) did not skyrocket due to market forces. If one dismisses all criticism of big pharma as conspiratorial or fallacious without answering serious and valid questions about their conduct one will soon lose their credibility.

Big pharma is a major industry with a fairly small number of corporations united behind an effective lobby.

Dismissing criticisms and concerns about the conduct of that industry feeds the conspiratorial thinking. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2485
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2019, 07:00:40 PM »
Steve didn't really go into in the details of whether flying cars could lead to an increase in traffic (or as he put it, reduce traffic, but that was implicitly about congestion), which is by far the worst aspect. It doesn't matter if you can e.g. travel 3% further on the same amount of energy, if you travel 20% more, unless there's some other significant effect to counter that increase.

We need to reduce emissions to or below 0. Minor efficiency gains that don't lead to emission reductions in absolute terms aren't something cheer about.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 08:54:36 PM by 2397 »

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8190
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2019, 08:33:58 PM »
Lobbying efforts by the supplement industry get rightly criticized. But talk of "Big Pharma" is immediately made to sound conspiratorial. The latter must outspend the former by orders of magnitude when it comes to lobbying.

The difference is that supplements are, to put it bluntly, fraudulent: They provide no benefits to the consumer, are often not even what's on the label, they sometimes contain prescription drugs or known common allergens that are not on the label, and are so completely unregulated that you really have no idea whatsoever what's actually in them.

Pharmaceuticals are highly regulated and you know with an extremely high degree of confidence what's actually in them and how much, and what the side-effects are.

Big business, whether it's pharma or agriculture or tobacco or cars or electronics or retail, or anything else, exists to make money and we should always be wary. But at least with pharma we know what's in their pills. With Big Supplement we do not. Big Pharma is selling a line of massively useful, life-saving products. Big Supplement is selling horse shit and calling it Belgian chocolate.

There's not enough regulation on Big Pharma around the pricing of drugs. There's no regulation at all on Big Supplement.

Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2485
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2019, 08:58:59 PM »
Implementing universal healthcare and allowing the government to negotiate prices would do a lot to deal with the negative aspects of "big pharma".

Some of the savings will be from cutting the advertisements.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 09:01:15 PM by 2397 »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4825
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2019, 04:31:03 AM »
I was surprised to here on Trump porn that athsma inhalers were more than US$300.  I didn't believe it, but Google says it is.  BigPharma inaction.

NZ$5.00 here.  Go Pharmac.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13108
Re: Episode #719
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2019, 09:55:22 AM »
Lobbying efforts by the supplement industry get rightly criticized. But talk of "Big Pharma" is immediately made to sound conspiratorial. The latter must outspend the former by orders of magnitude when it comes to lobbying.
The differences in labels are the key to that discussion.  Nobody on the show defended everything the pharmaceutical companies do, they do a lot of shady things.  But calling the industry "Big Pharma" is a logical fallacy.  It's pretty clearly poisoning the well, and does sound conspiratorial. 

Interesting article on why albuterol inhalers cost so much in the US and why we don't care.  It amounts to some bad regulation and law only tangentially related to drugs.  Nobody cares because:

Quote
In large part, that’s because private or public insurance picks up most of the cost, and the size of copays does not necessarily correspond to the differences in the actual cost of prescriptions.
  I recently had some prescribed and it cost about $10.


Edit to add link that I forgot.

https://undark.org/article/asthma-inhalers-cost-bill-took-breath-away/
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 11:26:53 AM by Ah.hell »

 

personate-rain