>> ^J-Rova:
...human genitalia. Thanks for putting the truth out there, schmawy.


I think if you google 'bat genitalia' you may need to revisit your previous conceptions regarding the endowment of bats. Little guys've got some swing.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You really can't have too many wind turbine videos. I think we need a channel.

Wind turbines are so neat but it makes you realize the engineering challenges that need to be met to make them work reliably. The composite structure of the blades themselves appear the most vulnerable. Fires in the nacelle (house on top) seem relatively common, too.

By sequence / location

1. The already infamous Danish failure. The internet rumors that it was a failure of the braking mechanism that allowed it to over speed. From the slow-mo it appears as though once the the composite blade has a small failure it rapidly cascades into giant flapping banana peels (of death).

2. Palm Springs CA. Looks like the generator burned up, but the blades are pretty beat up, too.

3. Villarcayo, Spain. Burning like a big bad birthday candle.

4-5. Part of a series of Fifteen from the Netherlands. You can clearly see the banana peel effect here. There seems to be little or no structure inside those blades, it is their shape that gives them rigidity.

6. Danish news report about (1.)

7. Wayne County Pennsylvania, USA. Blades delaminated.

8. Fenner, New York Blade failure.

9. What really happened.

I've had enough wind turbine videos for this year, thanks

Comment of the year!

In reply to this comment by zomgg:
These types of videos make me kinda sad, the destruction of something so beautiful and useful is a little depressing.

>> ^budzos:
I heard it's a challenge to keep the blade tips on these huge windmills from creating sonic booms.


To check this we can look at the velocity of the tips of a blade, and compare with the speed of sound to see if a sonic boom will occur. According to Wikipedia, common modern wind turbines have a blade radius of 20 to 40 m. Taking an average of 30 m:

velocity = rate of rotation x radius
speed of sound = 343 m/s
radius = 30 m

rate of rotation where the tips are approaching the speed of sound = 109 rpm
This is much greater than the common operating parameter of 10-22 rpm

For the worlds biggest turbine (according to Wikipedia), r = 63 m
rate of rotation where the tips are approaching the speed of sound = 52 rpm

So it does pose a problem for really big turbines, but in general can be avoided for average turbines. Also, note that with any wind speed the required rotation rate will be slightly lower, since the velocity at the tips will be the combination of the wind and the rotating speed.

The more you know!

src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine

>> ^gwiz665:
A dupe is a video with the exact same content or less, different angle = different video = not dupe.
arsenault185: In your example there would be no dupe unless the exact same clip was used in both cases. If there is different voiceover, but same video it is also not a dupe.


I don't agree with this definition. And the FAQ doesn't either. Providing new audio does NOT automatically make a submission not a dupe. From the FAQ:

" Duplicates will be * discarded. A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content."

emphasis mine

if someone wanted to study that failure, they'd want both perspectives. I think the best thing to do would be to get the titles and tags in alignment, such as "wind turbine failure" "another view of wind turbine failure" or something like that, so on a search both would appear, show up in related videos, etc. My vote is for a return.

It's not a dupe. It's NOT the same video. It was shot from a different angle, with a different a camera. Therefore not a dupe.

Who cares if it's the same event? The rules don't prohibit videos about the same event. They just prohibit the same video. If the rules prohibited the same event being displayed, then if two people submitted videos about Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, each one shot from different angles, would they be dupes?

Sure, these videos are similar, but not similar enough to call dupe on this one. That's why I had no problem voting for both.

My opinion was requested, so there you have it. Now we have a tie: 3 for and 3 against. Can someone else weigh in to break this tie and end this, please?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
discuss - Exact same event - new camera angle offers nothing new and in fact is worse quality video.


I disagree with you, gunner. This should be *returned. It's not a dupe. It offers a wider vantage point, therefore it adds something new to people like me who would like to see multiple angles of something. Ideally, it would be best if both videos were combined into one, but that's not the case. And for those who would like to see more on a subject, multiple angles is a great way to do so.

In reply to this comment by DavidRaine:
Wind turbines kill birds, and now we see their operation is unsafe and causes wanton destruction to nearby wildlife. We ought to outlaw these dangerous turbines and move to clean, safe, nuclear energy!

I'm not sure if wind turbines can be accurately categorized as causing "wanton destruction", though I will second your notion for nuclear energy (still I'm pretty sure your comment was made in jest). Those fucking baby boomers and their fear mongering back in the '80s has put a damper on new nuclear power plant development in this country. Yet another reason to hate the hippies! Stop fucking in the bushes, cut your hair and get a job, hippies!

It's a shame we don't embrace nuclear power, because it's really a clean and sustainable energy source. A lot better than fossil fuels, in my opinion. I want every car to be equipped with the Flux Capacitor and your very own Mr. Fusion to power it with banana peels and refuse.

>> ^qruel:
I think daivraine was using sarcastic humor as nuclear is not cleaner than wind, nearby wildlife was not killed in these 2 failings (out tens of thousands) and more birds are killed flying into skyscrapers than wind tourbines


This is why I prefer VideoSift to YouTube. Its residents recognize sarcasm.

I can't wait till there is a full switch to egg beater type of wind turbines...

They even have a better name;
Egg Beater > Spinning Blades of Doom

These types of videos make me kinda sad, the destruction of something so beautiful and useful is a little depressing.

>> ^budzos:
I heard it's a challenge to keep the blade tips on these huge windmills from creating sonic booms.


To check this we can look at the velocity of the tips of a blade, and compare with the speed of sound to see if a sonic boom will occur. According to Wikipedia, common modern wind turbines have a blade radius of 20 to 40 m. Taking an average of 30 m:

velocity = rate of rotation x radius
speed of sound = 343 m/s
radius = 30 m

rate of rotation where the tips are approaching the speed of sound = 109 rpm
This is much greater than the common operating parameter of 10-22 rpm

For the worlds biggest turbine (according to Wikipedia), r = 63 m
rate of rotation where the tips are approaching the speed of sound = 52 rpm

So it does pose a problem for really big turbines, but in general can be avoided for average turbines. Also, note that with any wind speed the required rotation rate will be slightly lower, since the velocity at the tips will be the combination of the wind and the rotating speed.

The more you know!

src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine

DavidRaine, I'll tell you what a man named Darwin told me. If wind turbines kill birds then in the future we'll just have smarter birds.

Wind turbines kill birds, and now we see their operation is unsafe and causes wanton destruction to nearby wildlife. We ought to outlaw these dangerous turbines and move to clean, safe, nuclear energy!