search results matching tag: pins

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (187)     Sift Talk (8)     Blogs (9)     Comments (761)   

Why these LEDs glow at all?

greatgooglymoogly says...

Chemical reaction, turns the orange into a battery. LEDs only need 1-3V to turn on so you don't need a very strong reaction. I noticed some of the pins are darker colors, Mr Glove probably dipped one leg in a dissimilar metal or another chemical so the electrons want to move from one pin to the other with the acidic juice as the electrolyte. Look up potato battery for similar experiments.

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

Lol. Lebowski.

I'm studying mechanical engineering (hons) with masters in biomedical engineering. It's a head fuck. I don't think anyone offers firearm design as a major itself.

The trigger finger is the primary safety (debatable), and there is usually a secondary safety and sometimes a tertiary safety. It's true that not having it is different than removing it but sometimes they are redundant. For example the palm safety (a tertiary safety on most guns) is often pinned to turn it off permanently because it didn't add any real benefit.

The particular gun in question looks like a CZ-75. A little hunting in the Youtube comments and other people agree. This particular model originally had a firing pin block which was eventually removed on later models (that have the same internals) because it wasn't needed (probably because they also have a thumb safety). This allowed for the short reset disconnector to be put in place (which is a factory part). So CZ ships two lines of the same gun - one with the firing pin block and one without. You're not suddenly unsafe if you remove it from the model that has it. With the quality of the video the way it is though, it could end up being another gun entirely.

Yes, x-ray diffraction is not the only method. It was an example only. The point being that your average gun owner and gunsmiths don't use these sorts of techniques as regular preventative maintenance. And they don't need to, guns are cheap and replacement parts are cheap. If something breaks you replace it. Some parts are replaced on a maintenance schedule (springs spring to mind). Most people never fire enough rounds through their firearms to need to replace anything.

Factory condition firearms malfunctioning is not rare. Factory condition firearms self firing is quite rare. But several model firearms have been affected over the years (meaning millions of firearms). But usually the problem is with a small batch of firearms from within those millions but they always do a blanket recall.

I agree, unintentional firing of a gun is almost always user error.

I still don't believe their is enough information from the video and accompanying text to make a judgment call on this guy.

newtboy said:

That's just, like, your opinion, man. ;-) I wouldn't rely on that position to help in court.

If you're really studying firearm design, you surely know different safety devices are on different firearms. Not having a certain device is different from inexpertly removing one.

Xray inspection isn't the only method, there's dpi (dye penetrant inspection) , magnetic particle, ultrasonic, eddy current testing, etc. I would be surprised to find a competent gunsmith that had never done at least one of those...I've done it for car parts in my garage, cheaply and easily.

How many videos would I find of well maintained factory condition firearms malfunctioning and discharging? I would expect that to be quite rare.

Thanks to safety features and decent quality control, unintentionally discharging is almost always user error, not malfunction, with rare exceptions like you mentioned. In this case it seems to be malfunction, both of the aftermarket part unprofessionally installed and the safety feature he removed that may have stopped the discharge even with the original failure. Imo, that's negligence, whether it in fact caused the discharge or not, because it made it far more likely to unintentionally discharge.

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

newtboy said:

You're only obliged to follow directions if you don't want to be negligent.
No injury does not mean no negligence. Not following safety instructions is negligent, as is removing safety features, why you do it or the fact that others are also negligent does not erase the negligence.
You can certainly identify wear patterns and or cracks before this type of discharge occurs in 99.9999999% of cases. Proper cleaning and inspections are part of gun safety.
Not lately, but in the past, yes. I've never seen an unmodified gun fire unintentionally, but I have seen poorly modified guns 'misfire' on many occasions.

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

You're not obliged under any circumstances to follow manufacturers warnings or instructions. They are liability limiting instructions (they are for the manufacturers safety against being sued).

Firing pin safety blocks and other "don't sue me" "safety" features are often disabled in competition guns. When something safely fails and nobody is in danger then no negligence has occurred. If you don't get it fixed after the failure then you're negligent at that point.

You don't know if it was a (preventative) maintenance issue. Faulty parts aren't a preventative maintenance issue in this sort of item (since you can't identify a fault until something like this happens - that's when you know it's faulty).

Do you shoot much?

newtboy said:

Because he ignored the manufacturers warnings/instructions AND disabled a safety feature, I can certainly say he was negligent. I can't be certain that negligence was the cause of the discharge, but I can be almost certain.
As to the 'it worked for 1000 rounds' argument...maintenance is 100% the owners responsibility.

Samantha Bee - Fake News, Real Consequences

Don't Tell Mummy!

enoch says...

my dad used to own a 1965 GTO.
that car was a BEAST,and he would do the very same thing when i was around this little girls age.

oh the joy of being pinned to the seat to the deafening growl of the engine, and watching the trees whip by at,what seemed to my little eyes,warp speed.

seatbelts?
what seatbelts?
didn't come standard with a GTO,and who needed em?
(maybe they did and they were just jammed so thoroughly into the cracks of the seats that we didn't even know they were there).

and then my mother made my dad trade the GTO in for VW bug,and so began my fathers slow decline into a suburbia fueled nightmare of mediocrity.

(i kid.he was still pretty fucking awesome).

You Can't Have My Wifi

JustSaying says...

Funny story, out of my own stupidity I made my WIFI vulnerable and somebody used my connection without my knowledge to download some obscure swedish war movie. A few weeks later I get mail from a bunch of lawyers and ended up paying 300 bucks for that shit.
You want my WIFI password? No, but if it's a real emergency you could use my computer while I watch.
Not an emergency? You can always go home if you're bored by me.

There's a reason that shit is password protected. I'll lend you ten bucks but I won't tell you my credit card's PIN. I'll give you a lift but I won't give you my car.

Bill Maher Monologue Oct 28

MilkmanDan says...

I don't care about the timing, political motivation, etc. etc. of this discovery of new emails. I think only 2 things matter:

1) Are they real / legitimate. But with all of the previous leaks, I never saw the Clinton camp trying to suggest that anything was fabricated. Taking stuff out of context to make it appear worse than what it arguably is doesn't count count as "fabricated". As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to give her credit for dealing with the out of context stuff so far in the proper way -- fill in the context so that people can make up their own minds (like some of the Wall Street speech excerpts, "public and private position", etc.).

2) Do they show anything actually criminal, even it is relatively minor. Capone went down for tax evasion, because that was the only thing they could successfully and concretely pin on him. And yet justice was served by going forward with that.

IF (and it remains a big if) these new emails end up meeting both of those criteria, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the whining that already has and will continue to erupt from the Democrat party.

Being a candidate in a presidential election paints a giant target on you and guarantees that your past is going to be under the microscope. If you've got skeletons in your closet, there is a very high chance for them to be discovered. Trump has had a well-deserved taste of that already -- maybe it is Clinton's turn now.

Evolution of Formula 1 racing games 1976-2015...

25 Random things about me... (Blog Entry by youdiejoe)

Mordhaus says...

1. My family was considered to be a 'organized crime' family by the police in Tucson, AZ.
2. I've committed 2 crimes in my life. My first was when I was 13, I shoplifted a Gen 1 Transformer from Kmart and was banned from the store until 18. The second was helping a friend load an illegally poached deer into his truck.
3. My first car was a 1974 Dodge Challenger
4. When I was 19, I almost ran away from my future wife to go to Dallas and open one of the first ink cartridge refilling companies with a friend.
5. My mother never married and let my Grandparents raise me.
6. I started smoking at 14, rolling my own from my Grandfather's Bugler tobacco.
7. I smoked for many years, quitting twice. Once when my Grandfather died from Emphysema and then for good when my Grandmother died of lung cancer.
8. I worked for Texas Instruments, Dell, and Apple. Their stock allowed me to retire early.
9. I've had a mental breakdown that lead to me retiring early.
10. I still suffer from depression and anxiety.
11. Online I can interact with people much better than I can in real life. I find it very hard to deal with people in person.
12. My wife embarrasses me in public because she is very outgoing.
13. I hate doing dishes. I mean I really loathe doing them.
14. I have two dogs.
15. I don't like cats very much.
16. I sometimes have weird dreams that my best friend is still alive.
17. I prefer being indoors vs being outdoors.
18. Other than my mother, my family is all dead or estranged.
19. I am a video game enthusiast.
20. I don't want children.
21. I once had a 4-wheeler roll over on top of me and pin me under creek water.
22. I used to use twilight as my online handle until Stephenie Meyer ruined that for me forever.
23. My favorite animated cartoon was the 1990's Batman animated series.
24. I used to be a huge Stephen King fan until he was hit by that vehicle and his writing suddenly started sucking.
25. I have very poor eyesight without my glasses.

Canada Lynx Saved From Trap

newtboy says...

I find it disgusting and outrageous that people are still allowed to use this kind of indiscriminate trapping these days at all. There's no way to keep endangered, or unwanted animals from being killed or injured to the point where they'll likely die later.
I would like to think I would destroy any I found, and/or use them on the trapper if I found them, leaving them pinned in the forest with both arms and legs attached to separate trees in hopes that the animal they were going for finds them and has a nice treat.
Just sickening. I hope at least this one animal didn't die a horrendous, painful, long, torturous death by starvation, but with the injured leg, it still may have.

"Hillary, A Career Criminal"

Police Officer reacts to Alton Sterling's execution

Asmo says...

To be pedantic, yeah, typically a lawfully ordered killing, but execution typically means that you kill someone where they don't really have an ability to fight back.

eg. killed "execution style" usually means bullet to the back of the head or temple, gut doesn't require legal endorsement.

In the case of being pinned down and then shot, yeah, it's pretty much an execution.

ChaosEngine said:

"Execution"?

Nope, regardless of how you feel about it, an execution is the lawful killing of a convicted criminal by the state, after due process has been followed.

This wasn't a execution, this was murder.

Fort Knox in Box: How ATMs Work

The limits of how far humanity can ever travel - Kurzgesagt

SDGundamX says...

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.



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