3047: Rotary Tool

Welcome to the explain xkcd wiki!
We have an explanation for all 3225 xkcd comics, and only 73 (2%) are incomplete. Help us finish them!

Latest comic

Go to this comic explanation

Bazookasaurus

|< < Prev #3216 (March 6, 2026)

Title text: In contrast to the deep booming sound associated with the cannon in pop culture depictions, recent studies show it actually made more of a 'toot toot!' noise.

|< < Prev Random Explanation

Explanation

This is one of 73 incomplete explanations: This page was created ~240 mya by a HEADCANNNON, but not for the reasons previously thought. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

As with 3185: Sauropods, this comic relates to the reinterpretation of fossil remains on the basis of new evidence, resulting in radical new understandings of the creatures involved.

Various dinosaurs developed impressive-looking spikes, plates, and the like, and the historical assumption has tended to be that these were used as offensive or defensive measures in conflicts with other dinosaurs. However, in some cases, later evidence has cast doubt on this, suggesting that the structures would have been too fragile or immobile to serve the purpose. Instead, it has been proposed that they may have been developed as a means of display, perhaps through a process of runaway selection. These new discoveries may be viewed as disappointing, revealing that "awesome" dinosaurs did not actually possess the combat prowess they were assumed to have.

This comic parodies this trend by showing a Bazookasaurus, a fictitious^{[citation needed]} dinosaur, which apparently developed a structure that bears a remarkable resemblance to a bazooka mounted on its back. (The "bazooka" depicted is a somewhat stylized representation that is rather more intricate than its real-life namesake, including the addition of various additional bone growths.) Supposedly, paleontologists initially believed that this was an actual functioning bazooka that was used by the animal, despite some rather obvious problems that would be presented to it in terms of acquiring, loading, and firing ammunition. Further study has apparently shown that the structure would not have been robust enough to stand up to the forces involved in firing a bazooka, so could not have served any combat purpose. As with the real life cases, this has led to a revision of understanding, and it is now thought that the "bazooka", despite its appearance, served as ornamentation.

Vascularisation is the way in which veins form through tissue. Study of this can give clues to the type of tissue that would have surrounded the structures. In some cases it may indicate that they would have been highly susceptible to damage, rupture, leakage or hemorrhage, and therefore unsuitable for use as a weapon or a defense. A bazooka wouldn't typically have veins in it, so a vascularization study would show that there isn't enough blood flow.^{[citation needed]}

The title text is referencing the fact that the calls of dinosaurs have been reappraised in recent years. Traditionally, and particularly in popular culture, they have been represented as having a deep roar or growl. This is probably through analogy with the majority of large fearsome animals that exist today, which have a tendency to make such noises. However, studies of the vocal apparatus available to them has suggested that they were more likely to make higher, more fluting sounds, similar to today's birds. The weapon bazooka was named for a loose resemblance to a musical instrument of the same name, which produced a tooting-type sound.

Transcript

This is one of 44 incomplete transcripts: Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

[Megan and Cueball stand in front of a dinosaur fossil exhibit, with Megan gesturing at the fossil on display. The fossil is of a ceratopsian with what looks like a giant ray gun on top of its back.]

Megan: Although Bazookasaurus's distinctive structure was long assumed to be a weapon, vascularization studies show that it was very fragile and could only have been used for display.

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

How come it's at 0.017 RPM for a minute?? and yet 1 RPM for a second? pls fix this randall Midnightvortigaunt (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Its 0.017 RPM for the minute hand. The minute hand revolves once per hour or at 1/60 RPM ≈ 0,017 RPM --172.71.148.59 18:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Ohhh that makes sense I didn't think about it like that Midnightvortigaunt (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Mr.Dude (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC) I wonder what torque is needed to launch the average backyard telescope worthy of a tracking mount at Mach 8 given standard state pressures and temperatures of perhaps average conditions found in Randall’s back yard.

How come the comment above is invisible to me? 172.68.245.229 18:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Possibly because people indented with spaces rather than with colons? 162.158.79.77 19:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

72 RPM for a record player...? 162.158.74.25 18:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I could only find 78 RPM disks in the german wikipedia. 172.70.114.56 18:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment: 72 is most probably a typo. The old records (at this date, very old, since the transition to vinyl records was 1948 to 1958 (in the US)) were 78 rpm, not 72 rpm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Rps (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

72 is (for example) relevent to font sizes (size 1 = 1/72 of an inch, size 72 = 1 inch), which might therefore have envaigled Randall's head for numbers by a different route, and got him confused. Conceivably he has had to deal with playing old 78s, but probably not for a long time... even the retro-revival of vinyl, recently, has probably not had quite so many old old records released to fill such nostalgic needs. So an easy brain-fudge/thinko to trip over on. 162.158.74.48 00:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a record label call 72RPM records. 172.69.229.146 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

We need one of those tables in here. DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I made a change to the explanation that all of these numbers are realistic because, I checked out the speed of dental drills and they really do rotate that fast. I haven't checked out all of the other tools, but I suspect that they are also accurate. If you find that any of them are misstated, please correct my correction. Rtanenbaum (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

TABLE REQUEST When someone uploads a table, I'd like to recommend a second column for the frequency / reciprocal of the speed. "0.000000000073 minutes" is one every 13.7 billion minutes, or ~26,000 years. Thanks! 172.70.46.107 20:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Me again. Should the column header "revolution time" be "rotation time"? In every instance, the axis of motion is within the object itself; even the second/minute/hour hands go around the axis. 141.101.76.73 16:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

TRIVIA 16 2/3 RPM phonographs were used for some voice-recorings back in the day. 172.68.26.24 21:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

My parent's old record player (60's, probably) had 4 possible speeds: 16, 33, 45, 78. By the early 80's the current ones only had 33 and 45. Rps (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Album goes back to stacks of 78s. A symphony or opera would be 2, 3, 4 or more disks. They were bound like a photo-album with a leaf for each disk. "78" wasn't "standardized" until the format was fading. 3600-rpm motor and 46-tooth gear is incomplete (one tooth gear??) Early discs were from 60 to 130 rpm. Users would adjust speed by ear (also to ease pitch-matching for karaoke). Only as LPs arrived did someone invent the number "78.26 rpm" (no recordplayer and few lathes of the period were near that accurate). --PRR (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, my parents had a large collection of old records and at least one had a speed marking of 80rpm.--172.68.186.43 09:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

With wind-up players, a lot of them started off playing at one speed and ended playing at a completely different one anyway...172.68.186.50 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect there's not many consumers needing a Uranium Enrichment Centrifuge... at least outside of a few countries in the Middle East. --172.70.58.6 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Might face some regulatory / export license issues too.172.70.86.129 11:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like there was a lost opportunity to have Dr. Who's Sonic Screwdriver on the list. Maybe the rpms are unknown.162.158.159.107 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The table says that 0.00070 "seems off; a sidereal day is 23.93 hours". That's just because (like all of the other settings) 0.00070 is quoted with only 2 significant digits. Every period between 23.64 and 23.98 hours would round to 0.00070 RPM. 162.158.134.199 13:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The question I have is: why are dental drill speeds so high? 172.70.247.92 17:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"why are dental drill speeds so high?" It hurts less. (Are you old enough to remember routine use of belt-driven dental drills?) You can cut a given amount of material (wood, steel, tooth) quickly with heavy force or high speed. Neither is really fun, but hi-speed is generally preferred. --PRR (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Although some materials behave badly to heat (either work-hardening, for some alloys, or melting/burning, like plastics) and that's why variable-speed hand-drills/etc usefully have low speeds (for essentially the same force, when that's done via reostat rather than an actual gearbox). On the few occasions I've had my teeth drilled, I'm pretty sure I've detected the pungent smell of fried tooth-fragments, but it was nothing like as strong as smelling my own nose-flesh being burnt one of the times I had it cauterised to try (and fail) to prevent excessive nosebleeds. 172.69.79.139 21:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest NMR CPMAS probes send their rotors to go at 9.6 Mrpm, M=mega. [1] --172.69.109.172 21:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we list the rotor diameters to achieve the mach 8 speed mentioned in the title text in the table? I don't think that we should. guess who (if you desire conversing | what i have done) 06:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I (obviously since I worked it all out) think it is in the spirit of the ridiculous idea of the comic and XKCD generally to do these calculations. That said, I'm getting different numbers than your update to make it Mach 8. Denver87 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I get the following: 4,799au, 74,866km, 37,733km, 3,144km, 52.4km, 1,588m, 1,165m, 728m, 175m, 34.9m, 21.0m, 149.7cm, 87.3cm, 174.7mm. Denver87 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to share calculation notes, but here's the example for the dental drill: 300,000rpm = 5,000 rps; diameter of: 174.7mm --> circumference of: pi * 174.7mm = 548.8mm; 548.8mm * 5000rps = 2,744,000mm/sec = 2744m/sec; Mach 8 = 8 * 343m/sec = 2744m/sec. Denver87 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you agree with the calculations, one of us can at least update it. Denver87 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
        Add comment

Is this out of date? .

New here?

Last 7 days (Top 10)

Rank Score Pages Changes Username 1 23 16 27 FaviFake 2 21 17 21 TheusafBOT 3 9 9 9 Victoria 4 6 3 6 BunsenH 5 6 3 6 DollarStoreBa'al 6 5 2 5 Jacob Thrall 7 5 2 5 Eelitee 8 5 3 4 Qwertyuiopfromdefly 9 5 1 5 Lychee Fox 10 5 2 4 Chronotix

Lots of people contribute to make this wiki a success. Many of the recent contributors, listed above, have just joined. You can do it too! Create your account here.