Love it. It stays. I dropped a comment here on the sift, too.

Thanks for the heads-up. Research has been so busy I haven't been on VS in months....

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
I submitted a video that is hot, and my inclusion of the science channel, very much on purpose, is controversial. I said I would like the determination to be made by you and not random star-invocations. Here is the video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Girl-spins-on-escalator

And here are some comments :

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


>> ^oxdottir:

Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


>> ^xxovercastxx:
By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


>> ^oxdottir:
Specious argument. Yes, many videos have gravity in them, no those videos don't usually show the existence of gravity producing a novel or surprising result. Should the Science Channel owner disagree, I would not complain.
I created the engineering channel partly out of frustration that there was no appropriate venue for cool gadgets, cool use of technology, and discussions of same. This is smack dab in the intended area, and I would know that better than anyone. Which doesn't of course, keep you from being snippy, but that's the interwebs.




>> ^rottenseed:
oh and this is nature too because humans are part of nature.
and sexuality because those tight jeans make her look sexy to me


>> ^oxdottir:
I removed those channels. If their owners really wanted them in, I wouldn't complain.
I am clearly from a different planet from some of you. To extend the metaphore above, a video that contained gravity as part of the world is not worthy of a science tag. A video taken of two disparate sized objects that were dropped off the tower of Pisa and which landed at the same time would be, even if no words were spoken. Rembar, whatever you want is fine with me.

I submitted a video that is hot, and my inclusion of the science channel, very much on purpose, is controversial. I said I would like the determination to be made by you and not random star-invocations. Here is the video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Girl-spins-on-escalator

And here are some comments :

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


>> ^oxdottir:

Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


>> ^xxovercastxx:
By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


>> ^oxdottir:
Specious argument. Yes, many videos have gravity in them, no those videos don't usually show the existence of gravity producing a novel or surprising result. Should the Science Channel owner disagree, I would not complain.
I created the engineering channel partly out of frustration that there was no appropriate venue for cool gadgets, cool use of technology, and discussions of same. This is smack dab in the intended area, and I would know that better than anyone. Which doesn't of course, keep you from being snippy, but that's the interwebs.




>> ^rottenseed:
oh and this is nature too because humans are part of nature.
and sexuality because those tight jeans make her look sexy to me


>> ^oxdottir:
I removed those channels. If their owners really wanted them in, I wouldn't complain.
I am clearly from a different planet from some of you. To extend the metaphore above, a video that contained gravity as part of the world is not worthy of a science tag. A video taken of two disparate sized objects that were dropped off the tower of Pisa and which landed at the same time would be, even if no words were spoken. Rembar, whatever you want is fine with me.

>> ^oxdottir:
>>Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.

Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.

just noticed for the first time an effect on axl's voice to make it sound like there are more frequencies there ( i think he already does have a weird multitone type voice though).

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^arsenault185:
I'm only begging for 2 more votes. Seriously, this is cool shit right here.

You have no idea how badly I wanted to downvote just to see your reaction.
It'll sift eventually.

I would imagine my facial expressions would resemble your avatar, and then I would weep uncontrollably



>> ^Pooterius:
Any time someone invents a nice, efficient, quiet mode of transport, someone gets the idea of putting a 2-stroke gas engine in it.


If you check out their technical specs, what they have done is amazing enough. Cramming a 4 stroke in there would have been incredibly difficult, if not impossible. This motor actually revolves around WITH the tire around a fixed axle. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think there is another engine like it.

Wow, that's a whimpy SUV. Tapped a sign and broke and axle.
It's like the thing wasn't designed to go off road or something.

Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

You're right in saying that these motors can be efficient if well designed. Tesla realised this more than a century ago, when he invented the AC polyphase design that we use to this day (which uses electromagnets to create the magnetic field). The challenge with the permanent magnet motor doesn't concern the proper alignment of the magnetic fields, but the magnets themselves.

Permanent magnets aren't forever permanent. They weaken as you use them to provide work. For example, the motor from your other clip would eventually slow down and stop altogether, and it wouldn't take long if you put a load on its axle.

Unfortunately, natural permanent magnets (lodestones) aren't nearly as magnetic as the commercially produced ones. They're not abundant either.

cobalt

I am well aware that the force of the air being exerted downwards by flapping wings is why the weight of an ENCLOSED trailer stays the same. Read my post carefully, I never said the bottom was solid. Here, I'll be explicit: If the truck's trailer was just two axles with a giant cage (with no floor/bottom tray) then yes, the truck will be "lighter," since the air being forced downwards will pass through the wires of the cage bottom and be exerted on the road, and not the trailer.

Sure, some infinitesimal/negligible amount of the force will be applied to the cage wires themselves, but the vast majority of it will pass right through.

if i were a betting man, he probably welded up the differential mounts for the ladderbars himself, doing a piss-poor job. when he took off, it cracked the welds, and out the rear-axle came. poor suspension design choice anyway.

Seriously though, fuck Axl Rose...

<pedantic>

Upvoted, but not really a wheel.

Wheel: a simple machine consisting of a circular frame with spokes (or a solid disc) that can rotate on a shaft or axle

</pedantic>

Hang on to your crankshaft! Don't forget to bring plenty of axle grease!

LOL @ Axl Rose

I'd recommend moving the axle of this towards the middle of the load.