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.

Barely got through the first one? I'd say you got all the way through the first one, that was your problem.
I heard this whole thing was just a big misunderstanding, the guy who commissioned the work asked for "Money Shots", at least he still used a viscous and sticky fluid.

@deathcow-yes...the super hydrophilic surface should act that way in most fluids. Not sure about scratching, but it makes sense it would lose its property with enough scratches, but bending/dents should be fine.
@Kalle-yes, and also easier cleaning, and fewer barnacles. I must add, this is not a material, it's a surface preparation/etching done with lasers, but could be made into a plastic sticker/wrap. That's what they did with the near microscopic "shark skin" surface pattern, which is designed to stop barnacles/microscopic sea life from attaching, but it is also fairly new and not in wide use yet. The thing that makes this better in my eyes is it can be applied directly to the metal, and should be easy to repair in dry dock.
I wonder which is better for repelling sea life.

Oh, the memories. We used to make this stuff (in small ~gram quantities) and paint it on door knobs and such, waiting for unsuspecting victims to com along.

Pro tip, never ever replace the fluid with alcohol (for more rapid drying), and then try to store the stuff long-term. The alcohol -will- evaporate, and the bottle -will- explode. It's the fastest way to sober up that I've ever found.

The problem is with the removal of the fracking fluid; when it's brought to the surface, with its chemical load, if it's not treated correctly, it will end up dribbling from the surface back down into the groundwater.
Which sucks.

You do not seem to understand when a video does exactly what it says it is going to do, explain the process of fracking, it even showed you the drilling part, the casing part, how they set the charges and what they do...

Made by an oil company yes, to explain the process of fracking ! There isn't lollipops flowing out of the ground down there. How about a video showing how a car is made, is that propaganda as well ? stupid cars burn gasoline and use oil and radiator fluid, are you aware how much downstream damage radiator fluid causes when it gets into freshwater ? why don't we all jump down every how it's made or done video.

*lies

The entire video is designed to convince watchers that it's "safe" because they use casings and cement, and that it doesn't contaminate because of these methods. They say exactly that, how we "safely " extract and deliver oil...History has proven it's not safe to drill or transport and does contaminate groundwater and surface land/water, therefore 'propaganda'. If they had not used the word "safe" I might give them more of a pass.
It is informative to an extent, but is also designed as propaganda with so many glaring ommissions of fact, and downright lies (like their incomplete list of chemicals), not a technical teaching tool.
I note they pretend to tell you what's in the fluid, but in reality it's a trade secret they won't even tell the fed, and have purchased exemptions from the laws governing drilling and contamination so they never have to tell anyone what it is, and are exempt from prosecution when they contaminate.
I also note they never mention earthquakes.

To me, this is like a meth head telling people they should try Krocodile, it's cheaper and you can make it at home! They ignore the fact that it kills you pretty fast.
You can support anything if you ignore the damage it does and only look at the good. When you do that, it's called propaganda.

Agree with @Fairbs...this is total self serving fracking propaganda and nothing more.
It is good they take some steps to not pollute.
It is ridiculous and terrible that they pretend the steps they take are fool proof and all inclusive. They have failed repeatedly (almost consistently) causing irreversible damage FAR more expensive than fracking is profitable. If they had to pay to really completely clean up even one contaminated aquifer, it would cost more than they could ever make off of the entire US gas reserves, and would never be completed because it's impossible to do.

15% of the fluid recovered means up to 85% of the toxic fluid is being pumped up through fractures, some of it into the water system. Even if only 10% makes it there, that's millions of gallons of unknown, poisonous contamination of our water systems.
True, aquifers may sit mostly at higher levels, but they have channels and fractures that reach below the level of the fracking, making a channel for the toxic drill fluid to enter the water table. Pretty simple to understand.
Also, the method used to fracture the rock is pulsing huge pressures through the tubes. Under those conditions, steel 'casings' flex (and sometimes rupture) and concrete fractures, destroying any 'seal' it could have made or, at best, creating channels outside the casing for the toxic fluid to travel up and out of.
I see many reasons this is not a viable industry without exemptions from legal and environmental regulations, which should never be granted to anyone.

For a Venus Flytrap

The process continues until all that's left of the insect is its hard exoskeleton. (Unlike humans and other vertebrates, who have an internal rigid skeleton made out of calcified bone tissue, insects and arachnids use a more flexible, external exoskeleton to both protect and form the framework for their bodies.) Once the nutrients are depleted from the acidic bath, the plant reabsorbs the digestive fluid. This serves as a signal to reopen the trap, and the remains of the insect are usually either washed away in the rain or blown away by the wind.
See more @ http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/venus-flytrap4.htm

Also before and after video http://youtu.be/pFGoZMld_Gs

No cutting fluid? That's impressive.

No Photo Fluid!!!
This is the Devil Camera!
Just AWESOME!

(He didn't tell them that the quality could be way better than any digital camera though, not that they would care)

Now lets see it work with a ferrous fluid (magnetic liquid). It makes way more interesting patterns than filings IMO.

It didn't look like anyone or anything was hurt or damaged. I would bet that Ensenada was happy to have this filmed there, free publicity (and they need all they can get after the hurricane). It looked way safer than when they run the Baja 500-1000 through there.
Those 'disadvantaged peoples' likely were also paid for the privilege (the town anyway).
Sometimes you should because you can...sometimes you should to learn if you can. My only issue was that the 10 seconds on the beach means hours and hours of cleaning and changing fluids for the crew. He should have stopped at the stairs with the bikini girls.

so minimally that far... this was pretty good from wiki:

Shock waves form when the speed of a fluid changes by more than the speed of sound.[3] At the region where this occurs sound waves travelling against the flow reach a point where they cannot travel any further upstream and the pressure progressively builds in that region, and a high pressure shock wave rapidly forms.

Shock waves are not conventional sound waves; a shock wave takes the form of a very sharp change in the gas properties on the order of a few mean free paths (roughly micrometers at atmospheric conditions) in thickness. Shock waves in air are heard as a loud "crack" or "snap" noise. Over longer distances a shock wave can change from a nonlinear wave into a linear wave, degenerating into a conventional sound wave as it heats the air and loses energy. The sound wave is heard as the familiar "thud" or "thump" of a sonic boom, commonly created by the supersonic flight of aircraft.

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.