That's very true. The simple fact that because the pressure of the tire off the rim is going to be normalized with the atmospheric pressure, even if you seated the tire back on manually, you'd have a zero pressure delta between outside the tire and inside. For a tire to run properly, usually you have to have a difference of approximately 30 psi. So yea, case closed. THANKS!>> ^messenger:

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:
Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.
I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:
So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:

Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.

I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:

So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

This thread has gotten me very curious to try all these things out for myself.

As far as equally weighted particles go, what you describe is not what we observe. We always see the same number of particles leave as came in, no matter their total momentum. A single particle going 1m/s ejects one particle also going 1m/s (I'm talking in ideal terms). A single particle going 2m/s doesn't release two particles going 1m/s, just one going 2m/s. The same particle going 100m/s likewise doesn't release 100 particles going 1m/s, nor 50 going 2m/s nor any other combination. As the force passes through the stationary particles, there's nothing to say what the mass or velocity of the striking particle was, just what the product of those two things was.

As for different sized particles, not having seen this done, if a solid (I mean a single piece, or welded together) 2kg particle came in at 1m/s, I predict a single 1kg particle would be ejected at 2m/s. My reason is the same as above: that when one ball strikes, the only information transmitted through the stationary particles is the total amount of force, not the velocity or mass of the striking object. Thus, the force transmitted through the stationary particles would be identical whether a 1kg ball struck at 2m/s or a 2kg ball struck at 1m/s. All this force is transmitted into the last ball which leaves with the same amount of force in the form of velocity as a factor of its mass, whatever that may be.

I think fusing the two balls together would fundamentally change their behaviour. I think when two loose balls hit together, the first one hits the stationary ones, bounces back towards the second ball which then stops, sending a second shock wave through the stationary particles, thus sending two signals very close together, and releasing two particles out the other side.

To continue the thought experiment, what if it were a 1.2kg particle striking a row of 1kg balls? I think it would be one particle going out at 1.2m/s, rather than 1 particle at 1m/s and a second at 0.2m/s or two of them together at 0.6m/s.>> ^heathen:

As you said momentum is mass velocity, and force is mass acceleration.
It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)
In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.
The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

>> ^messenger:

I know that multiple balls hitting one side will cause multiple balls to be released from the other side, but momentum isn't measured by counting the incoming particles; it's measured by mass velocity, and that's all. One ball hitting with great speed usually releases one ball at great speed out the other side. Two balls with very low speed, even with less total momentum than the single fast-moving ball, will release two balls from the other side at the same low speed. It's something about the number of particles, not their momentum, that determines how many are ejected.

As you said momentum is mass*velocity, and force is mass*acceleration.

It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)

In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.

The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

>> ^critical_d:

It will surprise you how quickly your pc will accumulate dust, hair, and fuzzies like this one did. Best scenario is the overall lifetime of the pc will be diminished (heat is a computer killer) and worse case is a short circuit in the box catches the nasties on fire and your house burns down.
If you do (and you should) want to clean out the dust then I suggest using canned air or a camera dust blower. Vacuum cleaners can build up a static charge that will wreck the computer if you aren't careful. The compressed air like these guys use is awesome for filling tires but there always seems to be water (condensation?) in the take that comes out when you use it.
This is just my advice based on personal experience so think of it as law take it with a grain of salt, I am sure others have had better luck but I wouldn't take the risk.
More info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283255-31-safe-vacuum
http://www.howtogeek.com/57870/ask-how-to-geek-why-you-should-never-vacuum-your-pc-converting-books-for-the-kindle-and-controlling-multiple-co
mputers-
with-one-keyboard/


It's more weird that SOME old computers are fairly clean inside even in the same place!

It will surprise you how quickly your pc will accumulate dust, hair, and fuzzies like this one did. Best scenario is the overall lifetime of the pc will be diminished (heat is a computer killer) and worse case is a short circuit in the box catches the nasties on fire and your house burns down.

If you do (and you should) want to clean out the dust then I suggest using canned air or a camera dust blower. Vacuum cleaners can build up a static charge that will wreck the computer if you aren't careful. The compressed air like these guys use is awesome for filling tires but there always seems to be water (condensation?) in the take that comes out when you use it.

This is just my advice based on personal experience so think of it as law take it with a grain of salt, I am sure others have had better luck but I wouldn't take the risk.

More info:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283255-31-safe-vacuum

http://www.howtogeek.com/57870/ask-how-to-geek-why-you-should-never-vacuum-your-pc-converting-books-for-the-kindle-and-controlling-multiple-computers-
with-one-keyboard/

This exists all over Australia.
People use it for it's hallucinogenic effects.
I've never heard of refining it into a power though.
I believe the popular way is to twist and compress the flowers in a tea towel and suck on the tea towel to get the flower sap (for want of a better word).

At first there did seem like there was something off about this, but if you watch the flip-guy frame by frame, everything makes sense re physics + timing and fits together too well re likelihood.

I think the reason i suspected fake initially was just the bewilderment of someone climbing into their boot to avoid having their legs crashed, little too hard to see if they succeeded, and another guy standing out in the middle of another lane when already in the middle of the road.. but when your focus is on "that car is running up the back of this one and i need to get out of the way" i think it forgivable to make a mistake like that.

His disappearing isn't weird, it's normal. Look at how fast that car is going, think about what the upper portion of your body will do when that mass hits just the lower half of your body, the guy could have died when his head impacted on the windshield due to how quick a transfer of forces took place (but i doubt he died).
(Edit: just read the description where it says he's alive. Lucky guy)

The flipping of the body seems fine, it continues consistently until another force joined the party.. the stopping force of the ground.

The landing, he crumples in on himself at a consistent speed before being flicked back when the combined force of the cars momentum, gravity and the spin all reached a stopping point where his body couldn't crumple any further.. and that compressed force acted like a spring.. that next head smash on the ground looked quite damaging and the arms did what they should have, they went with the existing direction of motion, bending only when the force pushed the elbow joint to the limit, until the forces lessened then biology/psychology survival instinct took over and he went fetal (which suggests he was not only still alive, but also conscious)

... imo

I use Fraps. It's like the mIRC of video capture. It's fairly inexpensive, and it's easy to pirate if you're so inclined. As jimnms mentioned, VirtualDub for editing/video compression. Bear in mind that, using a program like Fraps, the recorded video is uncompressed .AVI, and the filesizes are immense. Make sure your storage device is nice and spacious.

If your kid wants any sound design done for an intro sequence or anything, I'd be happy to whip something up. Example of something recent.

Others have already posted links to video recording software. I've used Xfire to record small snips of games, but I don't know if it supports Minecraft. All of the recording programs (AFIK) record raw (i.e. uncompressed) video, so they will be very large files.

If he wants to put in fancy effects and titles, the video editing is probably going to be the most expensive if you go pay software. I don't know of any free programs that can do editing like that. If you just want to put the clips together and compress them, there are some good free programs that can do that. The free programs I've used are VirtualDub and HandBrake. Grab the ffdshow codec. I believe I read somewhere that if you encode your videos using H.264, it makes things easier when uploading to YouTube since it won't have to convert it, and the ffdshow codec can do H.264. I'd start out with free stuff before spending money to make sure it's something he's going to stick with. If he sticks with it, you're going to need to buy some more hard drives to keep backups on too.

I subscribe to and watch a few Minecraft LP channels. I like to watch how other people play and what they do because it gives me ideas of things to do in my own game. One also makes up a story and role plays, which is kind of cheesy but interesting.

Thank you for the warning. Was waiting for it to load and thought to peruse the comments while it did so. Glad I read this—no watching for me!>> ^Kalle:

Thank you fucking trailer for showing the entire movie compressed in 2 minutes...

>> ^Kalle:

Thank you fucking trailer for showing the entire movie compressed in 2 minutes...


It'd be cool if what they showed you happened in the first half only...

Thank you fucking trailer for showing the entire movie compressed in 2 minutes...

>> ^RadHazG:

Naturally its a large pod. Plenty of room for compressed slow release breathable air tanks. We send air with men on spacewalks, we can surely keep a large capsule with 6 people filled for a while.
>> ^saber2x:
what happens when the oxygen in your pod runs out over Kansas seeing your in a vacuum tube?



And they kind of need air in the vehicle too..... like, a lot of it? Never mind the spacewalks. As in, that's of no concern.

Fair enough. I can imagine a number of safety/emergency protocols but I've no idea how cost effective they would be. Given the simplicity of the system I can't imagine it would be to difficult though. Hell we send people through the sky in an aluminum tube over 10,000 feet in the air all the time, I can't imagine this would be any more dangerous. The first several years will undoubtedly have some accidents, every new tech does. If we never tried new things though we'd never go anywhere.
>> ^saber2x:

I know we can do it, but it wont be NASA prepping your pod, it will be some jackass that use to work at McDonalds. All im asking is what do they do if you do have a emergency or mechanical failure?
>> ^RadHazG:
Naturally its a large pod. Plenty of room for compressed slow release breathable air tanks. We send air with men on spacewalks, we can surely keep a large capsule with 6 people filled for a while.
>> ^saber2x:
what happens when the oxygen in your pod runs out over Kansas seeing your in a vacuum tube?