I believe this is a dupe

http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-On-Al-Jazeera-English

Although the linked one is dead

*dead

I'm pretty sure she said "They'll chew up the foundation of your house in a second". I didn't realize wombats had jaws like a jackhammer.

^ Completely agree, they got viscosity all wrong, the fluid seems to stick to objects in weird ways and the momentum seems all wrong, watch near the beginning as a seemingly small velocity flow climbs all the way up the side of the wall, despite plenty of open space for it to slosh out towards the camera.

http://www.videosift.com/video/CG-Liquid-like-youve-never-seen-before-Amazing

This is a great example of good CG fluids, but I'm assuming it isn't real time. Still, something like this is the goal as far as I'm concerned, here it seems like the focus is on light reflecting off the water and maybe droplet creation/motion, but to me water looks more real when it flows correctly.

One comment for all those who will play this, after you beat the game, look online about the Stars. The effort is worth it.

My understanding is that the Kaye effect occurs in shear thinning liquids, and I'm not sure that silicone oil fits that category. Is the same effect at work in all these videos?


I suspect that it is the same effect. He isn't clear what fluid the jet is in the first part, but near the end he mentions pouring mineral oil into a pan of the same. Both mineral oil and silicone oil are polymeric fluids, and will most likely display shear thinning behavior. I suspect the main difference between this and the shampoo videos is that here the jet is a much larger diameter and therefore has more momentum, deflecting the surface and setting up the bounce. In the shampoo videos, the jet doesn't have the momentum to displace the surface, and so only starts to jump as the material settles. Note that the bounce occurs as the flow rate of the jet decreases, so presumably there is an energy balance between surface tension and momentum (maybe viscous forces as well?) that determines whether the jet simply pierces the surface, or sets up the bounce.

Thanks for the sift, I'll probably spend the rest of the day looking into this more instead of doing the research I should be.

While adorable, the camera man is lucky momma didn't notice him in the window, I have heard some pretty ridiculous stories about angry, overprotective moose mothers. Moose are BIG and not to be messed with.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that a majority of the physical labor/supporting labor for the artisans in the construction of large structures came from farmers during the dry season, a place to sleep and food in exchange for their labor. Skeletal remains that have been found at these sites suggest basic medical care, such as evidence of setting and splinting broken bones, as opposed to the sort of "driven until death" that would be expected from slaves. That isn't to say that slave labor wasn't used, but probably not predominately.

One of my all time favorite songs, great find.

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

The point of science is to question everything, no matter how obvious. The interesting wrinkle here is that without gravity a boomerang would actually stop eventually due to energy losses from viscous dissipation (you can see it slowing down by the end of the turn). While this is easy to show analytically, having a guy who is already up there doing all kinds of experiments throw a boomerang a couple of times proves expected theory elegantly and with a small cost ($2 boomerang).

dupe *kill

Funk Brothers are all kinds of win.

As a native of Wisconsin, I've always been a fan of Sen. Feingold, and was very disappointed to see he didn't run for the presidential nomination. I can't think of a time I've disagreed with him on policy, and he comes across as somebody who genuinely cares about the people, and not power. The Democrats' Ron Paul, if you will, without all the crazy "destroy all federal programs" ideas.

Could somebody findthumb for me, sorta gives it all away right now.