Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
I believe that joke about cow winning the same competition is also correct?
Also, I guess lobsters are expected to have a pretty aerodynamic shape (or is it aquadynamic at that point?) 'cause, well, otherwise they won't be able to move efficiently under water due to it's density or something, I'm not a physicist.
Hydrodynamic
Why it's grease lightning
Hydrodynamic is the word you're looking for.
My husband's work in R&D often involves him looking to nature to find ways to improve the efficiency of designs and materials. Evolution has done a lot of trial and error that often results in the most efficient way to deal with a problem, so giving a look to natural adaptions seems like a smart move.
And that's why everything that we've designed to solve a problem in our house is a crab.
You'd be surprised how inefficient much of evolution is. Look at a giraffe's laryngeal nerve and you'll see what I mean but because it hasn't been a reason to die or deter mating it carries on.
Even in humans or knees are awful but because we evolved from monkeys our knees had to bend backwards to climb. So to get around this we have long feet and an ankle that serves as the fulcrum instead of knees like basically every other know bipedal species.
I could ramble on about this for a while but I'll spare you my nerdy excitement.
Oh, I'm aware that a trait surviving doesn't necessarily mean it's the best and I'm not trying to say that everything from the natural world is something you'd put in a design (you truly cannot understand how much I hate the human musculoskeletal system).
With that said, there are also a lot of really cool adaptions that can be utilised in R&D. My point was more a general comment about biomimicry being rad. Also, I think I was considering evolution as something of a...database that can be good to use when doing R&D.
Sorry if this isn't very coherent...I'm meant to be asleep...
Also always happy to hear about weird quirks of evolution!
Oh I'm sorry. I'm not trying to make you feel like I think you're ignorant or something. I'm basically looking for an excuse to talk about a topic I enjoy.
Again, my apologies if I made you feel talked down to or anything negative.
I didn't mean to come across defensively and I apologise that I did! Your comment was rad and meant I looked up the cool, weird U turn nerve! Apparently the Supersaurus is estimated to have a RLN of 28m!
I hope you keep finding reasons to talk about topics you like and I'll try to be mindful of how comments I make may not be coming across as I intend them to.
God damn crab people!
I'm going to go out of my way to make my solutions more crab-like now. Maybe they'll get better.
A Jeep is one of the least aerodynamic things in the world.
Which would be fine if they were still used for their original purpose.
If you're stuck in mud with your wheels spinning, aerodynamics is the last thing on your mind, but you still might need enough space in the back for 8 sheep and a dog or six heavily armed insurgents.
They're just a bit shit for anything else.
what about a really big cube
So a Jeep?
not cube enough
Air resistance is futile.
Laughs in Suzuki Samurai
and Landrover Defender
A wrangler is basically driving a tipped over refrigerator down the highway. 0-60.. eventually. Sure does climb hills well though, and it's a blast to whip around in snow.
Is that surprising? I would expect lobsters to be aerodynamic since they evolved for moving through water.
My husband's fun fact is that apparently they're bodies are hydrodynamic backwards because to swim they sweep their tail up in front of them. So it's better for them to be hydrodynamic in that direction.
You mean hydrodynamic. Fuck me, imagine if those things could fly
Not a mechanical engineer, but as I understand fluid dynamics (which admittedly isn't much):
Aerodynamics and hydrodynamics are both branches of fluid dynamics, the fluids in question obviously being air and water. But the difference with them lies mostly in their Reynold's Number. Particularly, if you scale your model accordingly between the different fluids w.r.t. each Reynold's Number, you'll find that the dynamics behave similarly. As in, you can test an airplane wing underwater and expect appropriate results.
Which I suppose means a hydrodynamic lobster could theoretically imply an aerodynamic lobster. I think.
The short version is the two should be relatively closely related, most things that are one will likely be the other. Not always true, but a decent rule of thumb.
That's a good way of looking at it.
And they are also less aerodynamic than a cow.
