A semi-decent explanation, although it would probably be nice to explain that in organisms, the previous versions of certain structures were all used and weren't just hypothetical uses.

In this case, the speaker uses a mousetrap as a tie clip, but the mousetrap did not evolve as a tie clip. However, we have used the same idea of spring-loaded mechanisms as the hammers in breach-loading guns previously.

This post is going down the well so that Science can be free.

>> ^arvana:
Smells like a set-up stunt to me... I don't know too many CCTV cameras with a "track burning motorcycle" mode.


Not that you're necessarily wrong, but if you call "fake", back it up with some modicum of background information. "Modern CCTV cameras use small high definition colour cameras that can not only focus to resolve minute detail, but by linking the control of the cameras to a computer, objects can be tracked semi-automatically."

From Wikipedia.

I know you're online! Talk to me! >.<

I will allow videos that talk about science or include it as a discussion. That's not why I removed it from the channel. Part of the channel description reads:

"In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought."

The video you submitted does not fit this description, so I removed it.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Ok, I'm still trying to understand the guideline for the science channel. So tell me if the gist of what I understand is correct or not. You'll only allow videos that demonstrate something about science and not ones that talk about science or include it as a discussion?

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This is the second time this has been posted, the first sift can be found here, including my comments.

This is the second time this has been posted, the first sift can be found here, including my comments.

I'm a bit late responding, but no, I don't know anything about it beyond Google-fu. Luckily, it seems like Mycroft covered things pretty well.

...by the way, what went down with this Aaron McDonald fella?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Do you know anything about this?

rembar, you've been on the planet long enough to know that laws are constructs, at best, agreed upon scientific explanations of the phenomenological world are up for constant refinements, and everything you know, could possibly be illusion.

I have never, and never will, argue that laws are representative of our understanding of the universe and are always being refined. The point is that changes in scientific understanding are due to gaining a BETTER knowledge of principles through empirical evidence, and there had damn well be better great evidence if somebody thinks they can break one of the most fundamental laws. And this isn't great evidence. This here is a good example of exactly the opposite, in which some high school or college dropout builds a machine with no idea of what he's trying to accomplish, and gets a result that he interprets as something other than what it is because he doesn't really understand it. Spirituality my ass, this guy is just sadly, horribly misguided. At best he could have stumbled upon a boost in efficiency. At worst he could just have fooled himself into using more energy than he thought, or he could be outright lying.

of course, NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER was involved in the conception, construction, or explanation of this device.....

No, there really wasn't, so far as this video shows. If there had been, there would be an explanation for its principles of "perpetual motion".

Honestly, I would expect better of y'all to not fall for a shoddy gimmick like this.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Ricardo beat Yundt by arm-in guillotine choke from mount at 1:08 of Round 1.

...yeah, I know I let the video expire last time. It went dead and I didn't have a replacement link.

No offense to you. I've gotta stick by the guidelines I've set for the channel, and one of those is: Perpetual motion machines get chucked right out. The machine by itself might have some interesting properties to it, but it's not perpetual motion.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
sounds good rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
EN, I am removing this post from the Science channel. That link pushed it over the edge and off the cliff. Sensational journalism loses out consistently to the laws of thermodynamics.

Thanks for your comment, it's always good to have more input.

In reply to this comment by IMSabbel:
I registered just to correct this description:

There is a difference between superfluidity and a bose einstein condensate. The effect of superfluid Helium might be descriped by the BEC theory, but its far from a "real" one in the theoretical sense. (otherwise, the creation of those wouldnt have been worth a nobel price not too long ago)

The exact explanation is a bit to long for that comment-field, but lets say that the demands for a BEC are _much_ higher than for superfluidity.

To get all atoms to occupy the lowest quantum state, such crude ways like the shown double dewar wont do it.
In fact, normally you would use a penning-trap, and do laser and evaporation cooling to get a few 100k atoms at the end with temperatures in the microkelvin range.


But superfluidity in itself is cool enough: You can also use it as near perfect cooling liquid (and you DO, for example in the LHC): Superfluid helium has _no_ thermal resitance. Heat can spread in it with the speed of sound, allowing the transportation of heat for km with only a minimal temperature rise.
Otherwise, supplying all those magnets in the LHC-Tunnels would be next to impossible.

Cool, but I don't really see how it's science...

Seriously, no. This will never be allowed into the Science channel so long as I am in control.

EN, I am removing this post from the Science channel. That link pushed it over the edge and off the cliff. Sensational journalism loses out consistently to the laws of thermodynamics.

Drive-by self-linker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwUJbhHy8w

*blog

*ban