Testament to the awesome power of *nature.

Adding video to channels (Nature) - requested by Zeph.

This seems to be the same event but a different shot of this same sift: http://www.videosift.com/video/Windmill-Destroyed-By-Wind

It makes me wonder why there was more than one camera. Or am I wrong?

I didn't think it was a dupe because of this line in the article
"The climate minister, Connie Hedegaard, is calling for an investigation to determine the cause of two violent wind turbine collapses in Denmark in the past week."
I thought this was the other one

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

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.

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

Looks like the exact same failure incident to me. The turbines pitch the same way after the blade strike and the blades float in the wind the same. What the heck. Awesome. Upvote both of them!

Would love to see a field of exploding turbines.

Same event, wider/different angle... compare 0:07 of this vid to 0:18 of the other. Both towers crumple in the same manner and you can see the same debris pattern in both.

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

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

>> ^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.

*discuss - Exact same event - new camera angle offers nothing new and in fact is worse quality video.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by MarineGunrock.

imo it's definitely the same event. Seems like a dupe to me.

I think it is a dupe and should be discarded.

[edit] the other video was a close up of just the turbine while imploding.

This video offers a perspective from far away (long shot) of the whole wind mill as it implodes as the blades and turbine tumble to and impact the ground. So while a small addition, I would argue that it offers something that the other video does not. In addition this wide shot offers and additional perspective of what happens to the blades as they fly out of view in the other video.

I realize this isn't set out by any rules, but I think that this 20 seconds of time is already covered by the sift. If you think your tiny differences make it better, the right thing to do is to offer the embed to the the original poster.

Now, if you had said at the top of your original post, This is a slightly different angle of this event, I suspect few of your votes would have been received. No one sees all the posts, and sometimes people vote without even watching all of a video.
I don't think these people would have voted for your video if they had realized upfront, that they were voting on a near dupe of a top 15 video.

There are 96 people who voted for the original, very few of whom voted for this. I would love to hear from kronosposeidon as to why he voted for both. but then, also voting for both, we have you. I guess you've explained.

Addendum, which I will make a new comment, because I fear an edit would get lost. If http://www.videosift.com/video/Rocket-Man-is-Real was worthy of discussion, how could this not just immediately be seen as a dupe: it's a much clearer case.

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.

>> ^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.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by blankfist.

I sure as hell saw no concensus before it was returned. Three spoke up for discarding it, and only two (assuming the submitter) spoke for not discarding it. I think it needs more discussion.
*discuss

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by oxdottir.

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?

I think it should stay.

Nice to have both versions with the different perspectives.

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.

So If i sift a video of a guy getting kicked in the nuts, and MG sifts a video of the same guy getting kicked in the same nuts, with the same foot, shot with a different camera 10 feet away, it adds something to it? We saw the windmill explode. To see it again from a further distance hardly adds any perspective. That would be like watching a clip of CBS coverage of an accident scene, and then watching it again from an ABC coverage. Same thing, but different? No. Same thing.

return it, different video-nuclear power would be fantastic if there were no missiles or bombs to shoot or drop on er attem...besides, the shit they keep under lock n' key blows Nuke power out the water anyhow....

and David Raine, hope that was tongue n' cheek, man.....bird-lover

Okay, the vote total is now 6 in favor and 4 against. We now have a consensus to *return.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by kronosposeidon.

Democracy in action!

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.

>> ^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

Jesus, there seems to be a lot of hallway monitors on this site. Who gives two shits if you think a 45 degree angle of the same video constitutes a dupe? Some people don't think so, and it's not in any violation of any rules, is it? So what's the beef? You're not the only people on this site watching these videos. Maybe others who don't live on planet "You" might want to see another angle of the same video content.

The day we have 87.654 videos of the same windmill polluting this site I will change my mind.

Until then, what blankfist said.

For every cat fart video, there will be two exploding windmill videos.

schmawy, you sly cat.

ashes2flame: I rescind the comment to arsenault185. The letter of the law is not the way I thought it was, my bad. I still believe that a different angle constitutes significant difference though.

^not just a a different angle, but different camera framing which offers an additional perspective by revealing something not in the other post.

found this two videos just now that are exactly the same except for the music. I included the link to the other video in the comments.

*BAN!!!!!!

qruel cannot be banned because star accounts are immune to banination - ignoring ban request by choggie.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.