I was thinking something more like a controlled liquid viscosity combined with different weighted balls. Sad to see its just a cg render.

I wonder how this method compares to just spraying the liquid butane and whatever directly onto the ice. I suppose it's probably not good for the rubber and polymer parts, but then, neither is fire.

Aint nothing I like more on a hot day than a coool glass of liquid hydrogen.

AlON is fine. I guess my point was that transparent compounds of metals aren't exactly uncommon, and neither is compounds having quite different characteristics to the elements from which they are composed. So it just seems silly to act like they've invented some amazing transparent metal.

Do you call rust iron? "Look at this chassis, its COVERED in iron! It's practically all iron all the way through!" :P

Another thing to keep in mind is that different forms of elements and chemicals have very different properties.

Pure elemental liquid mercury is pretty cool stuff. Lots of people (myself included) can remember playing with elemental mercury in their bare hands in chemistry classes, etc., and even that sort of cavalier use basically never resulted in cases of mercury poisoning.

In sheer statistical terms, I gather that it is relatively safe to have pure liquid mercury directly on your skin -- cupped in your hands, say -- for short to medium periods of time. Open wounds, even small ones, can make that significantly worse. Even ingesting elemental mercury generally doesn't result in too much absorption into the body, but it remains a terrible idea. Evaporation of elemental mercury even at room temperature can lead to inhalation of mercury vapor, which is drastically more dangerous. So, ventilation and environmental controls are quite important.

This organic mercury sounds like terribly nasty stuff, but fortunately people are very unlikely to be exposed to it outside of a lab or if you are a scientist who is intentionally synthesizing it.

I think it is kind of a shame that those high school chemistry type sessions of messing around with elemental mercury are pretty much gone today. On the other hand, even though the risks are lower with elemental mercury like that, the rewards aren't really all that high either. I have fun memories of messing around with the stuff, but it wasn't by any means necessary or important outside of pure academic curiosity. Better safe that sorry I guess, particularly when the extreme end of "sorry" results in horror stories like this.

Your video, Liquid Sand Hot Tub, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Steam explosion. The lava is so much hotter than the boiling point of water that it converts from liquid to vapor very rapidly, that rapid expansion is the explosion. With an oil fire, it's much worse because the oil fire typically only burn on the surface where it is in contact with air. Adding water and a steam explosion throws the oil into the air allowing all the oil made air born to also catch fire and burn.

Devil's advocate:

First up, If we're looking for "something we can't imagine", by definition we are unable to search for it.

Second, there's every possibility that aliens ARE very similar to us. There's a principle known as the Mediocrity Principle that states that if you pick a thing at random from a set, it's more likely to common than unusual. In this case, we are picking from the (hypothetical) set of life-sustaining planets, and using the only example we're aware of: Earth.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Earth is typical of life-sustaining planets. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly special about it.... it's a rocky planet in the "Goldilocks zone" where water is liquid. We've found plenty of those.

So there's actually a good possibility that life on other planets could face the same evolutionary pressures and arrive at the same solutions.

Aliens might not be that different at all.

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

Coal is responsible for many orders of magnitude more deaths and radioactive emissions than all nuclear incidents combined. But people don't care about simple things like facts or numbers. Talking about renewables when a significant portion of baseload power is still produced by coal is pointless. Let people have their feel good green tech (made in China, powered by a lot of coal of course ; ), but replace coal with modern nuke.

Denying the place of recent generation nuclear power as a viable strategy of supplying cleaner baseload power is much like denying man made climate change. Fucking moronic.

Thorium salt reactors do produce waste, but it's incredibly safe compared to breeder/lwr reactor byproducts. In fact, you can introduce older reactor waste in to the liquid mix in small amounts and the LFTR will break it down to less harmful components by accelerating decay in the core.

http://lftrnow.com/

"LFTRs can also burn radioactive “waste” we are currently storing, made from the LWR units of today. We could actually reduce our radioactive waste using LFTRs and other Molten-Salt Reactors (MSRs) (more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fqB6p9pgM)."

So LFTR is a strategy for both power supply and cleaning up existing waste storage. Who'da thunk it??

"Punking the shit" sounds very "presidential".

Our own president the other day mentioned to your presidents' best friend Vladimir Putin at a photo-op that "there are too many journalists, some should be liquidated" which seemed to be too "rad" even for Vlad, who backed out with a "perhaps it would be enough to limit their number".

Some presidents. Nice to know they're all just punking the shit out of us, that it should not all be taken seriously.

I guess the hint for these is the rotational test that they show at the first.

1) A sticky object that would let go like a wall crawler that climbs down a wall would create this effect. (see below)
2) You can't. As you approach infinite speed it would get very close. (see below)
3) The bike will move forward. (see below)
4) The outside parts of the wheels that overlap the rail. Also if the train has a flywheel that is larger than the wheel size the bottom of the flywheel would also always move backwards faster than the train was moving.

1) He says "what object is inside?" so I'm not sure a liquid would count. Also a viscous liquid would flow a slow rate and would probably not stop and start. You might be able to get a viscous liquid to stop and start if you had fins, but that still might just move slowly or gain enough momentum to roll fast without any flow.

2) A little excel calculation shows that the average velocity approaches twice the initial but will never hit it.

attempted m/s - total time - average m/s
1 100 1
2 50 1.333333333
3 33.33333333 1.5
...
200 0.5 1.990049751
201 0.497512438 1.99009901

3) I'm not sure if the parameters of this experiment are explained sufficiently.

If it is allowed to slip then no matter the mechanical advantage a hard pull should always be able to get the bike to skid back and defeat friction.

If the bike is not allowed to slip on the ground then I don't understand how it could ever move backwards, the only options would be that it doesn't move at all or it moves forward.

If it can't slip then the ratio of the pedal to the wheel is what is in question. Bikes only have gear ratios higher than 1 and the crank is smaller than the tire so the tire will always rotate more than the crank thus the bike should move forward.

1) Honey or similar liquid
2) Three times as fast.
3) Nowhere. If you pull hard, the wheel will spin, until the pedal is horizontal, then the bike will still not move (the back wheel will not turn).
4) Lower half of the wheels.

1) Some sort of viscous liquid, like honey.
2) Yeah... I thought v1=1 and v2=3, but then I realised that was actually more like t1=3, t2=1 which is not quite what the question asked.
3) Most of the bike will go forwards.
4) First thought was the wheels, but it would only ever be the very outside edge of the wheel in contact with the ground, only on driven wheels, and only if the wheel was slipping.

edit. I knew there was a reason it had to be a train and not a car. The rims of the train wheels extend past the contact point with the rails, so they will be moving backwards (well, part of them) even if the wheels don't slip.

I lived in Cape Canaveral during the shuttle program and was fortunate enough to watch all but 5 launches live.

An excellent video with scenes I thoroughly enjoyed in slow motion and HD.

A brief mention in the video about the 6 seconds from when the main liquid engines ignite until the solid boosters ignite is called "twang."

When the main engines ignite, the power causes the whole assembly to rock forward. It takes 6 seconds for the assembly to fall back to vertical again and then the boosters light up and away it goes.