3 ms·
Exactly. It also can't move in any of the other ways a human can, it certainly won't be climbing obstacles. It's not as if humans are the pinnacle of power eff
by throwaway7767 12y ago
Exactly. It also can't move in any of the other ways a human can, it certainly won't be climbing obstacles.
It's not as if humans are the pinnacle of power efficiency. We're versatile, but inefficient. So if you're going to compare a machine to human movement, it should be on the basis of versatility. A car is way more efficient than a human at moving on a flat track.
- maxerickson 12y agoA human uses less energy going a mile on foot than a car does. So for one definition of efficient, the human wins. They should still win even if they are carrying a modest load. I guess I would have used effective where you said efficient. (If you add in the energy used by modern agriculture to produce the food the human ate, the car probably wins: http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoline-driving http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoli...)
- rquantz 12y agoHow much energy does a human use when he carries a car for a mile?
- maxerickson 12y agoI'm curious how I could have better phrased my comment so as to not invite responses like this. I guess I realize that 'efficient' vs 'effective' is a quibble, but I was trying to respond to the ambiguous usage of 'efficiency', not trying to give the final answer on the comparison.
- rquantz 12y agoSorry, I realized you were trying to be circumspect, I just was instantly visited with a vision of a guy trudging around a track with a car on his back.
- ori_b 12y agoHow much of that comes from bipedal motion, vs the way that humans break down their food?
- qbrass 12y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwCwwrDnGI The wheel of cheese rolls effortlessly down the hill with no power source, while the bipeds all end up turning into makeshift wheels trying to catch up to it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]