|
 If I was one of those guys hanging on the wall......At least the dozer landed upright. 
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
I watch too many cartoons, my first thought is that poor crane. What do they do with busted construction equipment? Seems like you could probably replace the non-broken parts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I watch too many cartoons, my first thought is that poor crane. Call up your dealer and say "I don't know what happened. Is this covered under the maintenance contract?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I watch too many cartoons, my first thought is that poor crane. Depends on how much non broken poo poo there is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Haul it back to the shop, use any individual still-good components as replacements for your other equipment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I watch too many cartoons, my first thought is that poor crane. Use them as backfill for the janky-rear end hole you're digging. I'm also amazed by the lack of response by the guys in the pit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Can you guys not post massive images? 1500x1700 is pretty darn big for an embedded video clip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
[timg] is a thing y'all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:[timg] is a thing y'all. It doesn't work on imbedded gifv or mp4 videos
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_kqYNam5GE
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Am I seeing right and the earthmover caught on one of the metal bars? You can see a bit of movement before it hits the bar and it's swinging to the left. Cranes are often less stable when hoisting over the side, so I'm guessing the bulldozer was far too heavy for it to safely lift and putting the weight distribution so far to the left caused it to tip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
The guy in dark clothes getting wayyy to fuckin close to the edge at the end to peer down at the carnage is like a little OSHA dessert
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
spog posted:Can you guys not post massive images? what, you don't like video clips larger than your screen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
I didn't even do anything to make it display like that, I literally just pasted the link into the textarea and mashed post, no tags or anything. They don't call these forums something awful for nothing!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You can see a bit of movement before it hits the bar and it's swinging to the left. Cranes are often less stable when hoisting over the side, so I'm guessing the bulldozer was far too heavy for it to safely lift and putting the weight distribution so far to the left caused it to tip. I'm going to guess the earthmover's blade getting hung up on that iron rod sticking out of the wall of the pit that did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Never be the smallest guy in an aircraft maintenance operation. It's either that or the ball turret
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Reminds me of this... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:I'm going to guess the earthmover's blade getting hung up on that iron rod sticking out of the wall of the pit that did it. You’d be surprised and terrified by how many crane operators (especially outside the United States) don’t really know the exact weight of what they’re lifting or how to not tip the crane. We had some students recently who were old, experienced operators who had never once seen a load chart in their lives. And we had someone complain about how he thought anyone with over 10 years’ experience should be grandfathered into certification because it’s just so inconvenient that he’s failed the tests 3 times and he knows better!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
The problem is that for every twenty "I know better than what the books or the manufacturer or the gubmint says" guys, there's one old dude who is actually some kind of a savant and has independently figured out all of the right answers and techniques and developed a sixth sense for how much load you can put on the crane or whatever, and all of the incompetent people point at him as an example of why they also shouldn't have to do any training or testing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
man autistic people ruin everything
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
This is the part of the "very special episode" where everyone hears a big crash and they run over to find the old hand crawling out of the crane wreckage. Everyone asks what happened and he says "I don't know, I guess that load was just too heavy. I thought I had it under control." Then the whippersnapper with the college degree says "This is why we have load charts. If you had just learned how to use it, this would have never happened."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Like, take that project to redefine the kilogram by making the world's most perfect silicon sphere. The standard they were shooting for was the equivalent of a ball the size of the Earth that was out of round by less than 6 inches. They hired the world's best lensmakers to work on the grinding and polishing over several years, and apparently one of the guys was so good that he could just look at the in-progress sphere, already the roundest object ever created by humans, for a few minutes and point out where on the surface it still had to be reshaped -- and after verification with a laser interferometer, he'd always turn out to be right. So there's that guy, and then there's a hundred lazy lens makers in Germany loving up people's eyes and going "Hans just grinds these things by feel, I've worked here as long as he has, I don't need to use the computer either"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
*note that the sphere is no longer the roundest object after a team of scientists last year encountered and measured Your Mom
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Stuff like this (and stupid speed limits, and calling peppers capsicums) is why I’m racist about Australians. A secret I keep from my Australian relatives (or rellies, in Aus-speak). All entirely fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:*note that the sphere is no longer the roundest object after a team of scientists last year encountered and measured Your Mom It also probably won't be the new kilogram because the watt balance approach is way cheaper to reproduce and doesn't rely on creating a physical artifact, the very reason why the kilogram needs redefining in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:*note that the sphere is no longer the roundest object after a team of scientists last year encountered and measured Your Mom Ahahaha nice And scientists are now using this iceburn as a benchmark for Kelvin
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The problem is that for every twenty "I know better than what the books or the manufacturer or the gubmint says" guys, there's one old dude who is actually some kind of a savant and has independently figured out all of the right answers and techniques and developed a sixth sense for how much load you can put on the crane or whatever, and all of the incompetent people point at him as an example of why they also shouldn't have to do any training or testing. They are just as bad: they do it the same way for 20 years and don't listen to engineers who warn them that you shouldn't do X anymore as they have been doing X for 20 years without a problem and they end up dropping a building on someone's head, or fly a 747 into a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Just noticed NTSB has had a few press-conferences on the Lawrence pipeline explosion. Not much news. So have this video they made on the San Bruno accident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-4B7DYVL2g
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:It also probably won't be the new kilogram because the watt balance approach is way cheaper to reproduce and doesn't rely on creating a physical artifact, the very reason why the kilogram needs redefining in the first place. both methods rely on creating a physical artifact -- one way you need to create a perfect silicon sphere, the other way you need to create an extremely precise piece of electrical machinery. Doing either one to the required precision is only really achievable by major research institutions. The point is that you'll be able to create the artifact from scratch without reference to anything other than the mathematical definition (radius of sphere or voltage in the balance), so anyone with the resources can do it at any time. Creating a kilogram standard right now requires that you have the original kilogram from Paris to compare against yours. Anyway, the major reason that both approaches were followed was to allow them to cross-check each other. The watt balance defines the kilogram in terms of voltage, which is in turn defined by frequency, which is defined by the second, while the sphere defines the kilogram in terms of length (radius), which is defined by the speed of light, which is also defined by the second. If you approach the definition from two different paths like that and find that they both agree in the end, you have more confidence that your numbers are correct than if you just used one. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
The speed of light is also dependent on the second. You're just going in different directions from the same starting point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISNGimMXL7M
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:The speed of light is also dependent on the second. You're just going in different directions from the same starting point. So? The second is already clearly defined (9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium atomic clock).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
I thought 1 ton was a perfect 1 meter cube of pure water? So 1 kilo would be 0.1% of that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:I thought 1 ton was a perfect 1 meter cube of pure water? So 1 kilo would be 0.1% of that? Water is too good a solvent. Getting it pure to the precision of the prototype kilogram is problematic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:I thought 1 ton was a perfect 1 meter cube of pure water? So 1 kilo would be 0.1% of that? That's a nice approximation but SI only defines the kilogram, the meter, the second, the kelvin, the mole, the ampere, and the candela. Everything else is derived. The kg is the mass of a platinum-iridium bar in Paris that almost certainly isn't the same size it was when it was put there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:I thought 1 ton was a perfect 1 meter cube of pure water? So 1 kilo would be 0.1% of that? What is "water?" Is it the water from the ocean? From your tap? From the rain? Okay, let's say fresh water with no other chemicals in it. It will be extremely difficult to purify water to the parts per trillion that we'd need to use it as a reference standard, but let's say that we can do it with a national lab's resources. We store it in an iridium flask under vacuum to prevent it from absorbing atmospheric gases or miscellaneous compounds from the container. What temperature are we talking about? Water expands and contracts with the temperature, and that will change its volume for a given mass. okay, we'll develop a system to keep our test mass of water at exactly 293.150000K, somehow. What is the isotopic composition of our pure, temperature-controlled water? Hydrogen has three different isotopes, and oxygen has several more, all of which occur on Earth at different abundances. They all weigh different amounts. Now we have to develop a whole process for purifying the water isotopically, like we do with nuclear fuel. Okay, we finally have our isotopically pure, temperature-controlled sample. How do we make it into a block that we can measure? Remember, we are trying to define the mass by the size of this volume of water, not the other way around. We can't put it in a jar, because then we're just measuring how well we can make a jar. Maybe we could levitate the water in a magnetic field and have it form a sphere? We'll have to keep it in the bottom of a salt mine or something in order to eliminate vibrations that would perturbed the surface of our sphere of water and ruin our measurements. Maybe we could freeze it and mill it into a block? That seems pretty reasonable. So let's do that. But why are we doing it with water? Couldn't we do this with a single element, so we don't have to worry about purifying two of them? One that's solid at room temperature for easy handling? And maybe we can pick one that we already have the technology for purifying. the semiconductor industry has mature processes for growing isotopically pure, single-crystal chunks of silicon that they need to make computer chips. Why don't we just repurpose that technology? And that's how we got to where we are. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Sep 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
I get that the SI unit defined the ampere as a base unit because in 1893 people knew about electric current but the electron hadn't yet been properly discovered and characterized (until J. J. Thomson's experiments in 1896) but the coulomb makes more sense as a base unit especially now that the ampere is being redefined in terms of elementary charge
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
spog posted:Can you guys not post massive images? Here you go: Elysiume posted:
Set the max-height to whatever you want, put it into Violent Monkey and it's good to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Keep watching... https://i.imgur.com/iOpUEh0.mp4
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 07:40
|
|