Back in the days when you could smoke anywhere and fire was plentiful you could do this trick easily with a spoon, a fork, a toothpick and a match.
Put the fork and the sppn together, put the toothpick inbetween, balance on glass and set fire to the end of the toothpick over the glass. It would burn down to the edge of the glass, and look like magic.
I think that is more laboratory vs factory.
Very cool; I’ll be sure to try this in the future. However, I don’t see why this is supposed to exemplify a difference between theory and practice. This is a perfect example of a college-level statics problem (theory) shown in the real world (practice). Engineering and science are in complete agreement here.
I’m not sure where “science vs engineering” comes in. Or “theory vs practice.” In this case, they are the same.
I have seen many examples of Science vs Engineering. This is nowhere near as effective as you seem to think it is.
Yes Cory what is with all the Engineer hate on this blog in the last few days?
Isn’t this the same science and engineering genius on display here?:
My favorite example of Sci vs Eng is Wile E. Coyote: aced all his theory classes; failed every lab.
Angelfire called: they would like their website design credited.
It is except you buy one of those, you don’t make it.
No he just cheaped out on his vendors.
This is an old trick. I remember seeing it when I was about 5 back in the early 60’s and I’m sure it is much older than that.
It’s like this trick, too.
It’s the same reason that high wire walkers use such long poles. Basically, The long poles allow them to cheat and make their center of mass more stable. Their poles are bent down, so their center of mass isn’t on the wire, but below it.
This pic shows different wire walkers arranged to have different centers of gravity. The one with the monkey is most unstable. The cyclist is best off.
and yet none of this can explain why Man on Wire was so. damn. good.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.