EMF + Water = Sudden Acceleration Of Your Car?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that electromagnetic interference from car washes could cause sudden acceleration in vehicles due to moisture affecting electronic systems. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility of this theory, questioning the lack of scientific backing and the credibility of the sources cited. Concerns are raised about the absence of verifiable data and the vague references to independent experts. The idea is dismissed as unfounded and lacking in technical merit, with suggestions that other factors like power cables or cell phone usage should be considered instead. Overall, the consensus leans towards the notion that the theory is not credible and lacks substantial evidence.
JasonWilliam
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hey guys. I was reading http://kansascity.injuryboard.com/a...romagnetic-interference.aspx?googleid=277752". This paragraph jumped off the page to me, and I wanted to get your thoughts on how feasible it it. To me, it reads like total bunk. But I don't have the technical expertise to know for sure.
Brett Emison said:
An independent safety expert has told me that a disproportionate number of these sudden acceleration events occur in or around car washes. The data suggest the car wash causes electromagnetic interference with the vehicle electronics, which either initiates or replicates errant signals to the electronic throttle controls. This interference is likely caused by moisture penetrating the electronics and acting as a conductor for electromagnet interference from the car wash machinery.
Thoughts? Is it possible? Does it even make sense?

I mean, if this makes sense, why car washes? Wouldn't we need to look at things like overhead and/or underground power cables, in the rain? Cell phone usage? Nav systems? Etc etc etc...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Crackpot nonsense - it's bad even for a newspaper article (and newspaper articles about science should be expected to be bad)...and the blogger's input is even worse. He's just making it up as he goes along and it is clear he knows little about the relevant science - it's just gibberish. But there is no real need to debunk anything since there isn't any verifiable content in that quote. Ie:
An independent safety expert has told me...
Who?
...disproportionate number of these sudden acceleration events occur in or around car washes. The data suggest...
What data?

After that, it goes from unsubstantiated claims to nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top