Lol. Lebowski.

I'm studying mechanical engineering (hons) with masters in biomedical engineering. It's a head fuck. I don't think anyone offers firearm design as a major itself.

The trigger finger is the primary safety (debatable), and there is usually a secondary safety and sometimes a tertiary safety. It's true that not having it is different than removing it but sometimes they are redundant. For example the palm safety (a tertiary safety on most guns) is often pinned to turn it off permanently because it didn't add any real benefit.

The particular gun in question looks like a CZ-75. A little hunting in the Youtube comments and other people agree. This particular model originally had a firing pin block which was eventually removed on later models (that have the same internals) because it wasn't needed (probably because they also have a thumb safety). This allowed for the short reset disconnector to be put in place (which is a factory part). So CZ ships two lines of the same gun - one with the firing pin block and one without. You're not suddenly unsafe if you remove it from the model that has it. With the quality of the video the way it is though, it could end up being another gun entirely.

Yes, x-ray diffraction is not the only method. It was an example only. The point being that your average gun owner and gunsmiths don't use these sorts of techniques as regular preventative maintenance. And they don't need to, guns are cheap and replacement parts are cheap. If something breaks you replace it. Some parts are replaced on a maintenance schedule (springs spring to mind). Most people never fire enough rounds through their firearms to need to replace anything.

Factory condition firearms malfunctioning is not rare. Factory condition firearms self firing is quite rare. But several model firearms have been affected over the years (meaning millions of firearms). But usually the problem is with a small batch of firearms from within those millions but they always do a blanket recall.

I agree, unintentional firing of a gun is almost always user error.

I still don't believe their is enough information from the video and accompanying text to make a judgment call on this guy.

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

Neither, they've stimulated an oscillation of the free surface electrons in a wire and taken a diffraction pattern of that standing wave of electrons, using an electron microscope. It's sensationalism.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rainbow, difraction, supernumerary' to 'minutephysics, rainbow, diffraction, supernumerary, Newton' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stars, star shape, minute physics' to 'stars, star shape, minute physics, suture lines, eye, diffraction, fourier transform' - edited by Eklek

Cool diffraction @ 8:09

I remember this guy.

Kicked out of Tulane university for one of the worst research papers in its history. This is the guy that doesn't even believe in how our eyes function:

"There is in fact no evidence at all that having this layer of nerve fibres (which are largely transparent) in front of the receptors significantly blocks, distorts or diffracts the incoming light in any way."

Total ripoff artist.

If you believe he was ever an Atheist, then I have a secret to tell you.

I am the Batman.

From Wikipedia:
An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality.

That means when you stare at an object DIRECTLY, you are tricked into believing that it has different qualities than it does.

In this example, you aren't starting at the arrows... you are staring at a diffracted image of the arrows. The diffracted arrows REALLY do point in the opposite direction. There's no illusion here.

Consider this...

If I put a rose-tinted pane of glass in front of the arrows, would you consider that an optical illusion?

Would you think "Hey, those arrows were on white paper before, NOW the paper is pink! Mind blown! Optical illusion!'?

No, you understand that you are seeing the colour pink because that's the property of the pane of glass IN FRONT OF the white sheet.

If you put a white sheet in front of the arrows, would you think: "Hey, the arrows have disappeared? Optical illusion!"?

No, that's the property of the sheet in front of the arrows.

And so on...

Hopefully, that clarifies it for you...

Clean your windows... sheesh.. how dirty can they get anyway. Also f/16 is well into being hurt by diffraction. His subject is fixed at infinity focus so f/5.6 on a lens like that would be much better.

Any aperture will produce this result, it's just that a larger aperture will produce a fuzzier image, so at one point it will just blur beyond recognition.
Basically every tiny detail in the image is spread out over the area of the shape of the apeture, but if you spread out the image over a large area you can get a pretty decent quality image.
The size of the image is determined by the ratio of the distance from the focal point to the sun and the wall respectively.
In this case the focal point is in the aperture itself but if your using a lens it can be elsewhere.

Diffraction only comes into play when you have a really tiny aperture.

I believe it is more-so the size of the hole as compared to the wavelength of the light shining through.

Here's some info related to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

Looks like water diffraction to me looking through the bottom of the bottle when in his hands.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

"Also, its worth noting that monochromatic light does not need two slits in order to exhibit a diffraction pattern."
@juliovega914, don't you mean coherent light instead of monochromatic?


Yes, I do, my bad. Coherent light is by necessity monochrome, but yes.

"Also, its worth noting that monochromatic light does not need two slits in order to exhibit a diffraction pattern."

@juliovega914, don't you mean coherent light instead of monochromatic?