According to the link in the description, it's actually a power plant, although it's no longer in use. There's a steam plant on site as well, but what was shown in the video is the preserved power plant, still in working order (although it's unclear if the engines are actually attached to dynamos, so I don't know if they could actually generate electricity).

If believing a "magician" isn't lying to you helps you enjoy the show better then I'm not here to stop you. Enjoy!

Unfortunately, when you look at modern "magicians" these days like Criss Angel, Derren Brown, Dynamo etc .. yes, they all actually do have stooges planted, and all of what is presented in their filmed shows is heavily edited from what you see in person.

And I didn't say everyone was in on it. A few choice stooges in the audience who conveniently had guys with mics standing right behind them. These kinds of performances (albeit without the mics) have been performed this exact same way for as long as magic has existed.

Let me just say that I hate talent shows and I despise Simon Cowell, but I'm still upvoting this.

There are some people doing some pretty incredible illusions at the moment. If you like this kinda thing, check out Dynamo. He does some amazing stuff.

Your video, Car Vent Spins Like A Dynamo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Most people do not call you Dynamo.

Now do that trick again in shorts or even just some skinny jeans.

>> ^spawnflagger:

the music sounds familiar - who is it?
It's definitely not magnets this time.... or is it?


Teardrop by Massive Attack, it's used in the opening of House.

>> ^spawnflagger:

the music sounds familiar - who is it?
It's definitely not magnets this time.... or is it?


Massive Attack - "Teardrop"

It's used as the opening song on House, also.

What is particularly interesting, and new science to me is that the majority of the heat that keeps the core molten is just decay heat from Thorium, Uranium, and Potassium. Only 20% of the heat that drives the internal dynamo is believed to be primordial, most is from the decay of mainly these elements. This, coupled with our crust layer which forms a heat retaining blanket, has enabled the heat of our core to live much longer than otherwise. Predictions for core solidification without radioactive decay is on the order of a couple hundred million years. Every major thermodynamic system on the earth is powered via some form of nuclear; be it fission (well, decay, which isn't usually called fission) keeping the core molten, or fusion keeping the sun burning...we owe a lot to the strong and weak forces!

You'll probably never feel the difference, even in a side-by-side comparison, and even if you can, it's not like you're inflating all the time:

1) Inflating from 22 to 52 psi takes maybe 40 strokes of a small, cheap hand pump, and a bit of effort (if your tires take longer or are more difficult to inflate, it's probably because they're higher pressure). Now stretch that same job over 3.5 minutes at (guessing this guy's cadence) a moderate 80 pedal revolutions/minute.

80 revs x 3.5 mins = 280 pedal revolutions
280 revs x 2 pedal strokes (right and left) per revolution = 560 pedal strokes

40 pump strokes / 560 pedal strokes = 1:14, or a touch over 7%

So per stroke you're doing 7% of the work of a hand inflation job. That's just about negligible, considering you're doing it with super-efficient pedal power, not an awkward bike pump.

2) Furthermore, that would only be for the first mile. Everything after that would be just like a normal bike because it would stop pumping. When the tire got a little under-inflated, it would pump for a couple spins of the tire, then be done. You'll never know.>> ^grinter:

>> ^dannym3141:


The tire should resist being compressed by an amount which would largely depend on the work needed to raise the bike and its rider by fractions of a milimetre per turn of the pedal which would not be very much extra energy to put in. You're also spreading that "pumping up the tire" energy over thousands of pedal turns. I'm almost certain it'd be negligible.
It's similar to putting a dynamo on a bike to power a light - that light requires energy to run, and it has to come from somewhere (the dynamo resists the motion of the wheel turning) - meaning you have to pedal ever so slightly harder. You wouldn't notice.

Well, you sort of hit on my point. At first it seems like it would be very little energy, but you are doing the same (or similar) amount of work as you would do when inflating the tire directly (the same job is getting done). I know that others have claimed that they don't get tired when blowing up a tire (no pun intended), but for me it is enough of a job that I wouldn't want to be doing it the entire duration of every bike ride that I ever take.
Similarly, most commuters and people riding bikes for sport don't want to deal with the extra energy (and mass) it takes to drive a dynamo powered headlamp, so they choose a battery powered model instead.

Ok. It looks like we mostly agree on the subject, but just have different opinions on whether it would bother us. I ride a lot too. I guess I'm just too picky.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^grinter:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^grinter:
It might actually save money if you could get it to work on car tires. Under inflation can seriously shorten the life of your car tires.
another thought: think about how tired you get pumping a tire from 22 to 52 psi. With the self inflating tire you are still doing the same amount of work.. and while the tire stops filling after reaching the desired pressure, it looks like you keep on working the mechanism with every pedal stroke. That kind of wasted energy can really add up.
Of course, energy is wasted through movement of the tires all the time anyway - just feel them after a ride; they are hot. The trick must be in getting the energy wasted by the pump mechanism to overlap with that energy that would be wasted even with a normal tire.

The tire should resist being compressed by an amount which would largely depend on the work needed to raise the bike and its rider by fractions of a milimetre per turn of the pedal which would not be very much extra energy to put in. You're also spreading that "pumping up the tire" energy over thousands of pedal turns. I'm almost certain it'd be negligible.
It's similar to putting a dynamo on a bike to power a light - that light requires energy to run, and it has to come from somewhere (the dynamo resists the motion of the wheel turning) - meaning you have to pedal ever so slightly harder. You wouldn't notice.

Well, you sort of hit on my point. At first it seems like it would be very little energy, but you are doing the same (or similar) amount of work as you would do when inflating the tire directly (the same job is getting done). I know that others have claimed that they don't get tired when blowing up a tire (no pun intended), but for me it is enough of a job that I wouldn't want to be doing it the entire duration of every bike ride that I ever take.
Similarly, most commuters and people riding bikes for sport don't want to deal with the extra energy (and mass) it takes to drive a dynamo powered headlamp, so they choose a battery powered model instead.


Well i mean obviously cyclists cycling for sport won't use any lights to avoid weight, and they have to accurately control such things.

We're talking about the kind of difference between going up some stairs and going up some stairs with a jacket on and after a big meal. It's completely unnoticeable to your strong leg muscles to carry that meal and the jacket up the stairs, but if you stood at the bottom and tried to throw them both up you'd probably find that a bit tiring. Know what i mean? I get your point but i just don't think you'd notice. I cycle a lot and the tiniest things can make it feel easy or tiring, would you notice a miniscule change?

Fair enough though if the potentially large eventual added up calories puts you off.

>> ^grinter:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^grinter:
It might actually save money if you could get it to work on car tires. Under inflation can seriously shorten the life of your car tires.
another thought: think about how tired you get pumping a tire from 22 to 52 psi. With the self inflating tire you are still doing the same amount of work.. and while the tire stops filling after reaching the desired pressure, it looks like you keep on working the mechanism with every pedal stroke. That kind of wasted energy can really add up.
Of course, energy is wasted through movement of the tires all the time anyway - just feel them after a ride; they are hot. The trick must be in getting the energy wasted by the pump mechanism to overlap with that energy that would be wasted even with a normal tire.

The tire should resist being compressed by an amount which would largely depend on the work needed to raise the bike and its rider by fractions of a milimetre per turn of the pedal which would not be very much extra energy to put in. You're also spreading that "pumping up the tire" energy over thousands of pedal turns. I'm almost certain it'd be negligible.
It's similar to putting a dynamo on a bike to power a light - that light requires energy to run, and it has to come from somewhere (the dynamo resists the motion of the wheel turning) - meaning you have to pedal ever so slightly harder. You wouldn't notice.

Well, you sort of hit on my point. At first it seems like it would be very little energy, but you are doing the same (or similar) amount of work as you would do when inflating the tire directly (the same job is getting done). I know that others have claimed that they don't get tired when blowing up a tire (no pun intended), but for me it is enough of a job that I wouldn't want to be doing it the entire duration of every bike ride that I ever take.
Similarly, most commuters and people riding bikes for sport don't want to deal with the extra energy (and mass) it takes to drive a dynamo powered headlamp, so they choose a battery powered model instead.


Well i mean obviously cyclists cycling for sport won't use any lights to avoid weight, and they have to accurately control such things.

We're talking about the kind of difference between going up some stairs and going up some stairs with a jacket on and after a big meal. It's completely unnoticeable to your strong leg muscles to carry that meal and the jacket up the stairs, but if you stood at the bottom and tried to throw them both up you'd probably find that a bit tiring. Know what i mean? I get your point but i just don't think you'd notice. I cycle a lot and the tiniest things can make it feel easy or tiring, would you notice a miniscule change?

Fair enough though if the potentially large eventual added up calories puts you off.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^grinter:
It might actually save money if you could get it to work on car tires. Under inflation can seriously shorten the life of your car tires.
another thought: think about how tired you get pumping a tire from 22 to 52 psi. With the self inflating tire you are still doing the same amount of work.. and while the tire stops filling after reaching the desired pressure, it looks like you keep on working the mechanism with every pedal stroke. That kind of wasted energy can really add up.
Of course, energy is wasted through movement of the tires all the time anyway - just feel them after a ride; they are hot. The trick must be in getting the energy wasted by the pump mechanism to overlap with that energy that would be wasted even with a normal tire.

The tire should resist being compressed by an amount which would largely depend on the work needed to raise the bike and its rider by fractions of a milimetre per turn of the pedal which would not be very much extra energy to put in. You're also spreading that "pumping up the tire" energy over thousands of pedal turns. I'm almost certain it'd be negligible.
It's similar to putting a dynamo on a bike to power a light - that light requires energy to run, and it has to come from somewhere (the dynamo resists the motion of the wheel turning) - meaning you have to pedal ever so slightly harder. You wouldn't notice.


Well, you sort of hit on my point. At first it seems like it would be very little energy, but you are doing the same (or similar) amount of work as you would do when inflating the tire directly (the same job is getting done). I know that others have claimed that they don't get tired when blowing up a tire (no pun intended), but for me it is enough of a job that I wouldn't want to be doing it the entire duration of every bike ride that I ever take.
Similarly, most commuters and people riding bikes for sport don't want to deal with the extra energy (and mass) it takes to drive a dynamo powered headlamp, so they choose a battery powered model instead.

>> ^grinter:

It might actually save money if you could get it to work on car tires. Under inflation can seriously shorten the life of your car tires.
another thought: think about how tired you get pumping a tire from 22 to 52 psi. With the self inflating tire you are still doing the same amount of work.. and while the tire stops filling after reaching the desired pressure, it looks like you keep on working the mechanism with every pedal stroke. That kind of wasted energy can really add up.
Of course, energy is wasted through movement of the tires all the time anyway - just feel them after a ride; they are hot. The trick must be in getting the energy wasted by the pump mechanism to overlap with that energy that would be wasted even with a normal tire.


The tire should resist being compressed by an amount which would largely depend on the work needed to raise the bike and its rider by fractions of a milimetre per turn of the pedal which would not be very much extra energy to put in. You're also spreading that "pumping up the tire" energy over thousands of pedal turns. I'm almost certain it'd be negligible.

It's similar to putting a dynamo on a bike to power a light - that light requires energy to run, and it has to come from somewhere (the dynamo resists the motion of the wheel turning) - meaning you have to pedal ever so slightly harder. You wouldn't notice.

>> ^rasch187:
^ They didn't become known for their songwriting until years after they became popular.


What, are you stoned again?

They were popular almost immediately when they got Epstien and came to America. They had some good covers, but all of their great songs were originals.

And even you must understand that a song is more than just its lyrics.

Gladwell is saying that the Beatles weren't prodigies because they spent so much time playing in Germany. I like Gladwell, but maybe he doesn't realize that there were a lot of bands all around Europe doing almost the exact same thing.

Lennin and McCarthy were absolutely prodigies, and the two of them together were dynamos.

The Beatles are proof of human alchemy: you mix the right people together, you get explosive results.

And I am shocked...shocked! that you can't see that, rasch.

Jake, first great comment.

What the US economy has become is a fundamental symptom of globalization and liberalization of trade markets, historically nations shifted from primary (extraction of raw resources), to secondary (manufacturing) and into tertiary (services and R&D) economies. The UK is a classic example of this shift in economic structure, moving from coal extraction, to textile mills to now financial centers over a large time span.

You are correct in pointing out that the US economy is now mostly a services, consumer and I would add R&D based economy. Now this is not a bad thing from a economics viewpoint for two reasons comparative advantage and trade liberalization.

Nations cannot be self contained and produce everything for themselves, various nations around the world have tried this and failed. Inherently there will be some things, for example, America (entertainment) will be good at and some things that Cuba (cigars) will be good at, the best case scenario is then for both nations to trade between themselves. This is called comparative advantage and it can be in R&D, manufacturing and services and so on.

When the great depression hit, nations around the world imposed large tariffs and trade restrictions that essentially killed world trade, reduced comparative advantage trade. The last 80 years of General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO) have been working at reducing the trade restrictions that didn't exist prior to the great depression.

Essentially at the very core, what the US economy has become is the consumer and services dynamo of the world, China has become a large manufacturer and both are dependent on one another for the continual economic growth of the world. Due to trade liberalization and comparative advantage. This is globalization at it's most simplified level.

This is why the bailout is essentially created to loosen the credit and allow consumer expenditure to increase through transmission of economic projects throughout the economy at a fiscal level. We are trying to increase consumer spending, and consumer confidence not to simply rebuild Detroit and let car manufacturers burn through credit.

Now there is alot of complexity and problems that arise at almost every sentence I wrote down, but this is the basic restructuring of the world economy that is taking place and its beneficial for the world as a whole, because interdependence on a trade and economic level would mean increased productive efficiency, use of scarce resources and security.

Yes it is possible it will emerge as a social contract, but what are the alternatives?

Protectionism will essentially undo everything the last 80 years have built, and there were moves for this in the bill which are now being stricken because of a fear of trade war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7871219.stm

Drastic realignment and change in government structure or what I like to call the Ron Paul effect is not political viable in any way, it would necessitate the utter change in government structure and national security profile (since major components involves withdrawal and draw down).

I think the problem is more rooted in the malfeasance of the Federal reserve and its stance towards regulating derivatives and sub prime market mortgages, we had a massive repackaging of toxic debt that was then marked favorably by the very agencies that are supposed to mark out risky packages. There was further failure in the SEC when it came down to clamping down on illegal activities, especially when it came to catching the Maddoff scandal.

I don't believe we will have a massive devaluation in the US dollar as China holds the largest US foreign reserves at this moment, as well as foreign debt along with nations like Japan. They will not want to make America default and collapse as a economic power as the repercussions will directly and severely effect them as well, a key part of globalization.

What is needed is essential CPR to the US consumer sector, but tax cuts alone will not work if people don't have jobs. So consumer confidence and consumer spending must be stimulated through other means, like the federal bailout that is being discussed right now. However I don't think it goes far enough in increasing credit in the economy, you must allow banks to start giving out lines of credit and drive economic activity.

We will see how this situation develops, I think its a hard sell either way and the next few years will be hard not matter what plan is imposed.