search results matching tag: axis

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (98)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (8)     Comments (267)   

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

billpayer says...

My guess with the phone one is that flipping along the face increases the instability due to the components inside the phone. The other axis are more evenly laid out. Across the face of the phone you have the battery off center, cpu etc all unevenly laid out, so the rotation as it flips becomes more unstable with each spin.

Water one has me stumped... Then again I've never full understood static electricity.

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

robbersdog49 says...

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.

Who knew metal milling machine could be such fun?

AeroMechanical says...

I'm surprised there is no cutting fluid being sprayed on it. Most all the multi-axis CNC machines I've seen (not many, admittedly--not my department), required a pretty constant flow of oil. Is this some advancement in cutting tool technology, or is it just that aluminum is soft enough not to need it?

I understand NASA has used 3D printing to create fuel injectors (or something like that) for rocket engines with considerable success. Since it's a solid metal shape with lots of vacant internal channels, there would otherwise have to be a lot of design and construction concessions if it's going to be cut or forged. I suspect that sort of 3D printing will be quite revolutionary for manufacturing once it doesn't cost stupid amounts of money.

Star Citizen: Arena Commander launch trailer

VoodooV says...

plays well so far..obviously lots of bugs....biggest is that they don't have controls mapped very well so you'll have to play with some xml files to manually bind keys and your joystick axis as for some reason, they mapped the controls out like an atmospheric jet. left and right are roll instead of yaw.

really surprised how well it plays as my computer is about two years old and my video card is a Geforce 570

The Expert (Short Comedy Sketch)

ChaosEngine says...

Actually, now I'm curious.

2 perpendicular lines.. easy

3? why not, just extend the third line along the z axis (of course any 2 representation of this wouldn't be perpendicular, but still)

Could you have 7? In some crazy n-dimensional space graph (ala a hypercube)?

Any maths geniuses want to weigh in on this?

Why is the Solar System Flat?

ChaosEngine says...

Are you trying to be funny or are you just that unable to read?

The explanation doesn't start with the "presumed" result, it starts with the observed result. We know it's flat, the question is why?

It doesn't start out flat. It starts as a big cloud, but it spins on one axis. After a long time (like say, the several billion years it took for humans to evolve to witness it), it flattens out due to reasons explained both in the video and patiently to you by @charliem.

billpayer said:

Durrrr.... you start your 'explanation' by saying our galaxy rotates around a central axis and momentum is conserved... ok
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT SHOULD BE FLAT.
You are starting your 'explanation' with the the presumed result.
ie. You are explaining NOTHING

Why is the Solar System Flat?

billpayer says...

Durrrr.... you start your 'explanation' by saying our galaxy rotates around a central axis and momentum is conserved... ok
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT SHOULD BE FLAT.
You are starting your 'explanation' with the the presumed result.
ie. You are explaining NOTHING

charliem said:

Maybe watch it again and pay attention? He said nothing of computer simulations....

In an isolated system (our galaxy) where there is angular momentum (the spinning about the galaxies central axis), the angular momentum is conserved (it never stops spinning with respect to how much mass is in it, and how far from the centre that mass is).

The objects floating above and below that central plane are NOT in an angular momentum vector, just simply moving about in a chaotic motion. Given enough time, these objects will collide, cancelling out their non-plane motions.....

None of this was derived from a computer model, but it does show it in practice near the end by using one.

The distinction is important.

Why is the Solar System Flat?

charliem says...

Maybe watch it again and pay attention? He said nothing of computer simulations....

In an isolated system (our galaxy) where there is angular momentum (the spinning about the galaxies central axis), the angular momentum is conserved (it never stops spinning with respect to how much mass is in it, and how far from the centre that mass is).

The objects floating above and below that central plane are NOT in an angular momentum vector, just simply moving about in a chaotic motion. Given enough time, these objects will collide, cancelling out their non-plane motions.....

None of this was derived from a computer model, but it does show it in practice near the end by using one.

The distinction is important.

billpayer said:

and this video answers NOTHING. THIS STUPID FUCK WASTED 3 MINUTES OF MY LIFE. "galaxies are flat because a computer sim told us" FUCK UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


U CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO BACK TO PLAYING MINECRAFT

Kangaroo eating a penguin on the beach

chicchorea says...

I have fed several species of deer, meat, to their apparent relish. Cooked, Mostly in Texas.

Spaghetti meat sauce and chili was very popular with them too.

...fallow deer, axis deer, mule deer, and whitetail deer. No fangs though.

Bill Nye the Science Guy Dispels Poverty Myths

poolcleaner says...

I think these so-called unstoppable warlords that siphon off our aid is an even bigger myth. The United States of America defeated the British Empire, invaded Nazi Europe, dropped a nuclear fucking bomb on Axis Japan, sacrificed thousands of lives in Vietnam, stood head to head against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, landed on the moon, funded Nicaraguan revolutionaries using money from arms sales to Iran, assassinated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet we can't deal with warlords and civil wars in Africa where (at least with Rwandan civil war) weaponry is in the form of crate after crate of machetes made in China?

If all of those things are possible for the biggest super power in the world, how is it not possible to stop these warlords from siphoning our aid?

Lies.

We don't care so nothing of real consequence happens. All of those above events have one thing in common: our own goddamn self interest.

Everything sucks. May god have mercy on everyone's soul.

bcglorf said:

I hate to get on Bill Nye, and I agree with the need for more foreign aid even. I must protest non the less about war being a minor factor in poverty and related deaths. Blaming the millions that die of starvation and malnutrition in Africa on that alone is little different than saying that the millions who starved under Stalin and Mao could have been saved by foreign aid.

Even when there isn't active warfare in the most poverty ridden places of the world, there are warlords and criminals ruling the region through starvation and actively redirecting what little foreign aid there is to themselves and away from those that do not support them. Simply sending more food and money to places like Somalia or North Korea does nothing to help the people there, and if the aid is naively sent blind to whomever holds power it actually makes things WORSE by strengthening the very monsters responsible for the suffering. I'd like to believe our apathy here is the biggest problem as much as the next guy, but the reality is that there are also people local to the problem involved first hand in perpetuating and profiting from human suffering. If we refuse to admit that there are instances were 'aid' necessarily takes the form of shooting the bad guys then we are doomed to watching as the next genocide plays out, as we did for the Rwandan Tutsis, Iraqi Kurds and Shias and countless others.

Truck drifting into a garage

World War II in Europe: Day by Day Change in Map

Change The Way You Look At Boobs

MilkmanDan says...

"Financially stable men prefer smaller breasts"

...that is one odd choice for a graph axis in this data set (financial stability, not breast size preference). They also need to clarify precisely what they mean. I assume that, on average, men with higher incomes would designate an "ideal/preferred breast size" smaller than that of men with lower incomes. I'd assume that there is an asymptotic minimum (in the b-cup range?); I doubt that 1%ers collectively prefer entirely flat-chested women.

But hey, whatever floats your (motor)boat.

bcglorf (Member Profile)

enoch says...

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Why Flying Saucers Can't Spin



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