search results matching tag: fluid dynamics

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (27)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (24)   

A Dragon Torched My Hand (How Do VR Haptic Gloves Work?)

MilkmanDan says...

By far the best class I took while getting my Computer Science degree was "Software Engineering Project". We got assigned a project and divided up into teams including CS, CIS, and MIS majors. The MIS people managed and divided up assignments, and the CS people handled different aspects of the programming, like data structures / algorithms / UI / whatever.

This looks like an extremely fun and interesting extension of that. There's CS guys programming, EE guys doing hardware / sensors / haptic panels, full-on Engineering guys doing fluid dynamics, etc.

Destin seems like a great "jack of all trades" type that can get in there and ask really smart questions off the cuff. All the guys geeking out and being impressed with his intuitions and yet hesitant to confirm anything is hilarious to watch.

Hypnotic Ink Physics in 4K Slow Motion - The Slow Mo Guys

Aziraphale says...

This is certainly one of the coolest videos I have seen them do, but what happened to the metallic one???
A rather nice illustration as to why fluid dynamics is freakin complicated.

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

dannym3141 says...

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.

U.S. Patent #1329559 A ~ Tesla's Valvular Conduit

bremnet says...

It's fluid dynamics, so for the purposes of the model that they CFD'd and the practical experiment, it doesn't matter whether it's air or water (they both can be treated as fluids), the outcome is the same... both have temperature dependent viscosity, are subject to frictional forces, and transmit forces through pressure etc. The principle of operation won't differ, but the efficiency may.

Drachen_Jager said:

This might work on air, because you can compress air, but I'm pretty certain it won't work on water.

Water is not a marble. It's not even millions of marbles, though that might better illustrate how it would move through the 'valve'. In reality the water is going up all those side channels AND the central 'smooth' channel all at once. The back eddies from the side channels will serve to help guide the water flowing up the main tube and if you can get ANY suction out of that sucker at all I'd be amazed.

Like I say, air is more complex. It might work there, but the efficiency would be so low I can't ever see this replacing a standard pump.

U.S. Patent #1329559 A ~ Tesla's Valvular Conduit

chingalera says...

@lucky760 That's a question for an engineer or someone well-versed in fluid dynamics I'm guessing but something else in place to create the vacuum would probably suffice....something that wears-out with less frequency than the valve itself perhaps?

The Aquatop Computer Display

sweet little cat

World War Z - Trailer - Brad Pitt & Zombies

00Scud00 says...

Fast zombies are fine with me, but these zombies look like they've been run through a fluid dynamics simulation, a wave attack is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. So I'm not sure how I feel about this yet, I haven't read the book but I did listen to the audio book and I don't remember anything like this.

Real-life M.C. Escher perpetual-motion machine

JestJokin says...

I think Payback pretty much has it. Except, IMHO, I think some of the columns (vertical) were cropped/created using AFX/Maya type programs.
I work in Maya , Max , CAD , AFX etc... Drach's comments about shadows and 'his eye' were as vague as him saying "I work in CGI". Sorry, but 'bollocks mate'. The only shadow (raytraced) inconsistencies are on 'some' of the columns, and their corresponding shadows. Dystopian, I'll bet money that the water is real, as well as the channels it runs in. However some of the columns do not receive or create shadows as they should. If he did create the water in a 3D program, he should be working for one of the major animation houses as a fluid dynamics animator, but I don't think he did. I could be wrong though, because this was NOT a simple trick.

I love the sift, mostly because of the level of intelligence often displayed in the comments. But "CGI" is a vague term that could be used by anyone who's seen Lord of the Rings. If you know what you're talking about, be more specific please. You don't need to 'dumb it down', this isn't YouTube. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, you can see it in the shadow-interaction if you look closely. The whole structure also stands out as a bit 'off' to me, but I work with CGI so I guess I have a trained eye.
The giveaway is the shadows though. Freeze frame it when his shadow is half on the structure. The edge of the shadow is blurred on the waterfall, but it's crisp on the floor.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.



Scientific Experiment: Slapping the Posterior in Slow Motion

kceaton1 says...

>> ^arvana:

The half-life of the transverse waves propagated from that slap indicate a damping factor of: FIRM.


You said exactly what I was going to post! So, instead...

In this new video being created by our highly skilled graduates; the camera speed will be slightly slower at 1000 FPS @1920x1080 (or higher if intended for use with IMAX or a screen over two meters) with a secondary stream containing a duplicate, but separate feed set proportionately two-centimeters apart from the other feed. Then slightly zoomed out at around a 5.7% overall frame increase in size and a slight 2° shift from the vertical, counter-clockwise. Then combine the two feeds to one feed, except beforehand, polarize the frames (or frame frequencies) 90° from the other (relatively). Hand out polarized glasses--that of course have a film matched to the polarized frequency. Then increase the overall playback time, matching with the framerate speed, to give a new perceived 30 minute length (20 seconds is ridiculous).

Then some 1960's or 1970's music can be added in (the beat of the music must match the wave speed; some "human intercourse" period film pieces may have the required music) to further increase the relation of wave propagation seen in the video demonstration. This will help add to the overall immersion and enjoyment of the experience.

Then, we suggest the use of lubrication (Group 5, with a Viscosity of 800cSt is recommended) and then use some transformational waves (many options are available) at a decent amplitude and frequency. One traditional method used is caused by simple human mechanical kinetic manipulation (flexing muscle groups) in a rhythmic horizontal/vertical oppositional motion spread out over a chosen time span. Speed, duration, and intensity are decided by the user or a human/non-human counterpart. Typically, this will propagate a strand of flagellates into a D-glucose polysaccharide chains in a combined structure for simple discontinuation and cleanup; then quickly proceeding on to the web browser and watching the next "sift*".

If "flagellate" reaction is not noticed or possible for you, please follow the yellow strip on the floor. On your way out you may participate in our free clinical study looking for medical problems. You will need to put on a special garment for the study, and you will receive a complimentary lollipop! Do not be disturbed if this reaction is not noticed as it is a well known and documented myth created by the sub-species that is the focus of our demonstration video. Do not be disturbed if you think you look like as said sub-species.

Thank you for watching our dissertation on wave propagation.
We look forward to our next project on fluid dynamics!


*sift, definition below

sift (sift)
verb. sift·ed, sift·ing, sifts
v.tr.
1. To put (flour, for example) through a sieve or other straining device in order to separate the fine from the coarse particles.
2. To distinguish as if separating with a sieve: sifted the candidates for the job.
3. To apply by scattering with or as if with a sieve: sift sugar on a dessert.
4. To examine and sort carefully: sift the evidence.
v.intr.
1. To make use of a sieve.
2. To pass through or as if through a sieve: a meal that sifts easily.
3. To make a careful examination: sifted through back issues of the magazine.

sift (suhifft)
noun. sift·ed, sift·ing, sifts, spelunking
n.wtf.
1. A video on the website called "Videosift™"; sometimes amusing.
2. A video not on the website called "Videosift™", fought over in a mating like ritual to become a sift.

Twist in Time - Laminar Flow

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'corn syrup, colour, mix, rewind' to 'steve spangler, viscous, corn syrup, food coloring, mix, laminar flow, fluid dynamics' - edited by BoneRemake

A Different View on the Science Behind Global Warming

gwiz665 says...

I do believe this is what they call an ass handing.

or was that just something that guy in the park made up..?>> ^Tymbrwulf:

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.
2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source
2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."
3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.
7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"
I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.
What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

A Different View on the Science Behind Global Warming

Tymbrwulf says...

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.

2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source

2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."

3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.

7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"

I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.

What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

Lagao multiphysics looks awesomely real

Saturn's Strange Hexagon Recreated in the Lab

rottenseed says...

>> ^Mcboinkens:

Not to be ignorant, but I would have thought scientists would have discovered this earlier. Is this the first recorded time that this has been done? I mean, obviously I wouldn't connect jet steams of water with Saturn, but it seems like somewhere someone would have tested this before.
This brings up some other interesting topics. Saturn is referred to as a "gas giant," but would the gasses have the same pattern as water? Also, this pattern is 2 dimensional, essentially on a flat surface. The haxagon on Saturn is probably curved, so I wonder how it is formed. Probably a similar concept, with the center gas rotating faster than the outter gas. But I am a noob in highschool, so I have no idea. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

Gas is a fluid...water is a fluid. The both fit into fluid-dynamics so they should follow the same pattern. It will work in 3 dimensions as long as you have ring of slower moving fluid with a circle of quicker moving fluid inside of it, I'd imagine. Just so long as there isn't anything going on above or below the pattern that would disrupt the "jet stream".

Oh and about it being "curved"...who knows. Saturn's might be a planar cross-section. Another possibility is it IS curved but the size of the phenomenon compared to its curvature makes the curvature negligible.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon