@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

The cereal one is simple, they add iron to the cereal and iron is attracted to the metal.

What surprised me about this is that I'd expect food additives like this to be in some kind of soluble form, just invisibly a part of the food. But when they add iron they literally just add little bits of metal, tiny iron filings. If you put the cereal in a blender a whizz it up to a fine powder and put the magnet through the powder it will come out covered in tiny iron filings.

The cane one is simple too, the finger closest to the centre of mass will always have more of the weight on it, therefore friction is greater on that finger, so the other finger moves more, until it becomes closest to the centre of mass and so on. Each finger gradually moves toward the centre of mass until your fingers are touching. Neither finger can move past the centre of mass because at the point where it lines up with the centre of mass it would take all the weight and the other finger would have no friction at all to push the centre of mass past the other finger.

The phone is a bit of a funny one. It certainly is possible, it's just that it takes more skill to do it. He just hasn't practiced enough. I'm a juggler and just gave this a try. I got clean rotations once every twenty throws or so, which I'm quite pleased with for a first attempt. It feels like something I could learn to do perfectly if I gave it the time (I'm not going to).

The instability is to do with the amount of force required to rotate the phone in each axis. The difficult one is the one that requires the most force and creates the slowest rotation. This means it's easier to add an error in the force when creating the rotation, and the slower rotation means the spin is less stable. All this makes it much harder than spinning it any other way. Harder, but not as impossible as he makes out.

I'm not sure how much credence I can give the wiki page...I note it claims things that are obviously wrong, like "the design does not have a long lifespan when compared to other engine designs due to large numbers of moving parts" while in fact this motor has far fewer moving parts than normal motors. It did make some good points, like the first one that occurred to me about friction, but also made some bad points such as claiming 'mechanical complexity' as a drawback, while in fact it seems far more simple than normal motors.
"extra complicated machined parts" also exist in normal motors, and can be made fairly cheaply and easily in bulk.
Excess use of oil is an issue, but one they should be able to solve with proper machining and materials. Low RPM is fine for many applications, like a generator, so long as it's efficient it's fine and might even be better. Since you get high torque at low RPM with this design, low RPM seems to be ideal.
They claimed it had comparable horsepower to the same displacement normal motors in the prototype...if true, that point is moot.
Actually, there seems to be less moving mass in this motor, consider the mass of the crank shaft and counterbalances, connecting rods and pistons, the camshaft, rods, lifters, rockers, and valves. This motor only had a compact 'crank' and the connecting rods and pistons, and the output shaft. That's less actually moving to my eye.
The 'potential for explosion' was claimed on Wiki to be a design flaw of the case thickness around the 'crank', which could easily be thickened if it doesn't have to fit inside a torpedo....potential removed.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or necessarily even feasible, but it does seem to have more going for it than you give it credit for and is worth following it's progress to me.

If a large percentage, or at least a majority of cars were now electric, I would agree. But they are not. Because internal combustion engines are still the norm, even in hybrids, making one that's more efficient and lighter with fewer parts is a great idea.
Don't let the great be the enemy of the good.
I wonder how they deal with centrifugal force when it runs at high speeds, it seems like the piston would ride the cylinder wall, creating major friction and heat. Maybe I missed something.

...and while at it...

I challenge you to support your fallacious assertion "talking smack to people he despises by MAKING SHIT UP," AND for that matter produce any other user with whom I share even mild friction much less the enmity you dribblingly profess.

...BUT...YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, even though it is of your raising, AS YOU NEVER DO...only more pitiable spewing. It cannot help it.

Your wild baseless caroms of vitriolic, profanity laden, diatribe are malodorous and tiresome. I do not despise anyone here and your assertion otherwise is as self servingly transparent as it is false. And you rise to naught but mild disgust. But, that is too much to put up with here.

i think wind resistance would eventually slow it down to the point of just having max freefall velocity for it size and weight. It wouldnt continue to go 10's of thousands miles an hour in our atmosphere, it would burn up from the friction.

I just saw the slingatron as you posted it a while back (the video you posted was private, but the link worked). While an interesting idea, they did seem to ignore a few things, most importantly the value of air resistance at sea level (or near it).
The issue is this...normal space vehicles travel at slow (relative) speeds when in the lower atmosphere, this limits drag and friction caused by air resistance. When spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere they must do so carefully, at specific angles and speeds, in order to avoid too much friction or they'll burn up (no matter what you make them of) or bounce off. When they are at high speeds, it is in extremely low air pressure, and vice versa.
This slingatron plan puts the craft at maximum speed in maximum air pressure. That's going to cause massive shock loads on the craft from turbulence, and also major friction and heat. I get the feeling those are insurmountable issues that ruin this plan.
A better plan I've heard of is basically a giant electro magnetic rail gun (cyclotron or straight linear accelerator) that is sealed and vacuumed as close as possible to 'empty'. If such a device could have it's exit point high enough (say, out the top of Mt Everest) it MIGHT avoid most of those pitfalls, along with the massive G load caused by spiral track acceleration (coupled in some slingatron drawings to an even higher G load 'launch ramp' at track end).
Just a thought for a tech minded 'buddy'. Enjoy.

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.

I'll give the guy all the credit for a suberb run (and balls of steel) but it's just not the same thing as driving it on gravel in a group B car.

Even if you ignore the sun in the eyes, stick gear changes and the way Vatanen had to use the clutch in the corners because the engine just had too much power, the sheer difficulty of traversing a low friction surface like gravel puts his time in a league of it's own.

Watch the two videos and you see the complete technical difference, Loeb goes in to low gear through the corners, doesn't drift at all (even drops in to first at points), and uses the cars acceleration combined with tarmac traction to get back up to speed. He even hits 6th gear quite a few times in the run. His control of the wheel is very smooth and measured.

Now watch Vatanen. Most of the corners, he's probably riding 2nd or 3rd and instead of breaking, is using the crazy horsepower of the engine to keep him going round the corner. He doesn't reach the same sort of top speeds of course because he's constantly fighting the loss of traction even in a straight line. His wheel control is excellent, but you can observe how he is constantly fighting to maintain his place on the road.

I suspect Loeb probably could better Vatanen's time with the same car and similar conditions, but we'll never know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89JEeeVF6rQ
(Note, already burning when video starts but I thought I'd throw it out there.)

It looks like its not so much the barrel but the other materials around it, the plastic for the AR, the wood for the AK. The AR towards the end also gets noticeably worse in its full auto performance until finally failing to fire on automatic most likely due to increased friction

The first teaser is *related=http://videosift.com/video/Frictional-Game-Teaser-Company-who-made-Amnesia-DD

Frictional Game Teaser (Company who made Amnesia: DD) has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

They spread the load out more evenly and provide friction in a larger area than just the bolt / screw. They can also provide expansion to prevent the eventual loosening due to movement (lock washers).

I assume the white flashing is friction heat from braking?

Cool.

That's an interesting point. In a way, it could be argued that the skill needed in order to make any given instrument produce whatever it is that you've got in your head could represent a sort of ideational friction. Beardyman has obviously spent most his life practicing with his voice, and as such, his voice has become his instrument of choice. However, as he pointed out, he eventually realized that his voicebox simply wouldn't be able to do all the things he wanted it to do, and because this was an issue of biology, there was no linear path through this particular obstacle.

So he had to get a bit lateral instead.

And really, the same goes for guitars. They started out accoustic, but then somebody decided that he wanted to do more with them; and thus the electric guitar was born.

Creative people of all stripes tend to spend their lives looking for a high-fidelity method of getting the stuff inside their heads into everybody else's heads, and Beardyman is no different in that regard.