Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Science / Retail Science at Work!
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM
The kind hearts over at Popular Science describe this video as "a beautifully illustrated example of Newton's First Law of motion involving shopping carts." I think it's more of a beautifully illustrated example of Adorno's First Law of Schadenfreude. But we both agree that it involves shopping carts.
1
HAHA!
What, do they not teach physics in high school anymore? Hilarious.
What, do they not teach physics in high school anymore? Hilarious.
2
This also serves as a reasonably decent example of relativity.
At least from a particular point of view. ;p
At least from a particular point of view. ;p
3
Science rules!
4
This is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster high school physics film of the new century.
This is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster high school physics film of the new century.
5
Jonathon, I was thinking the same thing as well before I saw your comment. Newton's first law of motion as well as relativity.
Clearly, this isn't as much as "Doh" moment as the over-engineering of the I90 bridge back in the early 90s that caused it to collapse. And let us not forget the major "doh" moment in WA state history where Galloping Gertie (Tacoma Narrows Bridge) collapsed thanks to poor engineering
Clearly, this isn't as much as "Doh" moment as the over-engineering of the I90 bridge back in the early 90s that caused it to collapse. And let us not forget the major "doh" moment in WA state history where Galloping Gertie (Tacoma Narrows Bridge) collapsed thanks to poor engineering
6
Apres_moi @ 5:
Calling the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse a case of "poor engineering" is slightly misleading. The engineers on that bridge did everyting right "by the book". The problem was that "the book" for civil engineering at the time didn't consider dynamic stresses. Only wing desigeners worried about them at the time, and they had never caused any structural failures before.
Of course, you could call any engineering that doesn't account for all the physics "poor", but the connotation to the lay reader is different. And no, neither I nor my relatives worked on that bridge. I'm just clarifying for the record.
Calling the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse a case of "poor engineering" is slightly misleading. The engineers on that bridge did everyting right "by the book". The problem was that "the book" for civil engineering at the time didn't consider dynamic stresses. Only wing desigeners worried about them at the time, and they had never caused any structural failures before.
Of course, you could call any engineering that doesn't account for all the physics "poor", but the connotation to the lay reader is different. And no, neither I nor my relatives worked on that bridge. I'm just clarifying for the record.
7
Actually, it wasn't quite by the book. The designer was using a new theory about bridges. He was chosen because the other prospective traditional designs were too costly.
Frankly, it wasn't poor engineering as much as trying to cut corners with new (and unproven) theories.
Frankly, it wasn't poor engineering as much as trying to cut corners with new (and unproven) theories.
8
man, i was in a similar position as those poor fools recently when i was working for fedex ground. they obviously should have closed the damn truck before taking off. sometimes that stuff doesn't get communicated to the driver effectively, and i very nearly got stuck driving to somewhere in the flyover states once or twice. to be fair, the drivers are generally under a lot of pressure to get shit delivered as fast as possible, so i imagine that this type of thing is pretty common. blame yourselves for every time you've bitched about delivery time. it's all humans dealing with it, and we're all equally fallible.
9
@5: The I-90 bridge sank because they left open the hatches in the concrete pontoons over the Thanksgiving weekend and a huge storm came in. Storm = waves = water in the hollow compartments = non-floating bridge.
So, no over-engineering problem, just a stupid contractor. An earlier version of the Hood Canal Bridge sank for similar reasons, so there simply no excuse. But it sure was entertaining to watch on my TV.
So, no over-engineering problem, just a stupid contractor. An earlier version of the Hood Canal Bridge sank for similar reasons, so there simply no excuse. But it sure was entertaining to watch on my TV.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Fort Worth Police Chief: That Faggot Had It Coming by Dan Savage
-
Defense Of Marriage Asshole by Dan Savage
-
Delightful Damage by Charles Mudede
-
Palin to Step Down as Governor by Lindy West
-
I'm Pretty Busy Murdering Arthouse Cinema With My Bare Hands at the Moment... by Lindy West
-
Summer In The City by Dan Savage
-
Things Come In Threes by Dan Savage
-
Re: Palin to Step Down as Governor by Eli Sanders
-
Shirt Lifter by Dan Savage
-
Wailin' For Palin by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (9) RSS