Wind turbine self destructs
tags:
Stumble This"The braking mechanism that limits the speed of the wind turbine broke during a storm in Denmark. This was the outcome."
http://jp.dk/uknews/article1277616.ece
http://jp.dk/uknews/article1277616.ece
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Wind turbine self destructs Wind turbine self destructs
Comments  playlists with this video Controversies by Krupo
who voted for this video qruel
- siftbot
x52Wind Turbine Self Destructs Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 13. lovelynotes
(170 votes) 15. reiwan
(165 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments           | ||||||||||||||
It makes me wonder why there was more than one camera. Or am I wrong?
"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
>> ^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
They even have a better name;
Egg Beater > Spinning Blades of Doom
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*discuss
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?
Nice to have both versions with the different perspectives.
and David Raine, hope that was tongue n' cheek, man.....bird-lover
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.
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
Until then, what blankfist said.
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.