Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 609 posts

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#491

Post by robonerd »

reportingsjr wrote: post #85
HideousKojima wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had one the other week where I was replacing an outlet in the kitchen. I flipped the kitchen breaker and the lights and appliances all turned off. I skipped the important step of actually testing the outlet and stupidly assumed it no longer had power. Turns out it was on a different circuit from the rest of the kitchen. The outlet was stuck in the wall box so I reached a flathead screwdriver in to try and pry it ou…

I made the mistake of not testing _all_ of the wires in an outlet a couple of months ago. I used a non contact voltmeter, and had shut off the breaker to the outlet I was working on. Little did I know that the jackass that did some previous wiring in the house had run wires from a different breaker in to this box. It was done in such a way that I didn't fully realize it could have separate live. My palm below my thum…

Look at the slotted screw heads on outlet face plate. Are they both aligned vertically/horizontally, or are they at odd angles?

If they are both aligned, the outlet was probably but not necessarily last worked on by a real electrician. If the screws are at odd angles, the outlet was probably but not necessarily last worked on by a DIYer.

Real electricians align the screws, as a sort of professionalism and a nod to any future electrician who might work on that outlet.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#493

Post by 1-more »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #476
xxs wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EV is DC, and DC sparks are a thing of beauty as they lack self-extinguishing properties unlike AC sparks.

why is that? I couldn't find any info about this

Caveat: I'm kinda dumb and this is a Cunningham's law situation.

tl;dr Because in a DC situation the current is always high so the temperature through the air is always high so the air remains a plasma and remains a good conductor the whole time.

OK I = V/R is how we talk about currents. Current (I) equals the potential (V) over the resistance (R).

An electrical spark is where the potential across an air gap is high enough that the air—normally a good insulator and thus a poor conductor—breaks down into plasma. In that state, the air is hot enough that the electrons that would be bound to the atomic nuclei can flow the way electrons in metal do. This means that the resistance of that air gap goes from being a high number to being a low number.

In the case of a DC spark, we have a constant high potential and with the plasma state a low resistance, so I = V/R = big/small = big current. Since we are putting a high current through a conductor, the temperature of the conductor goes up, and the plasma remains a plasma. It stays a good conductor the whole time.

In the case of an AC spark the AC potential goes from some big positive number of volts, to zero volts, to some big negative number of volts, to zero volts, to some big positive number…you get the idea. At some point I=V/R goes from being big/small to zero/small, which can be long enough for the air to cool off and stop being a plasma and be a bad conductor. So when V is a big (positive or negative) number again in 1/4 of the period of the signal (probably 1/60/4 = 1/240 seconds) the air might be too cool to conduct the current. Then V/R would be Big/HUGE = effectively zero current.

Remember: I'm just some weirdo online. This is not advice. Don't mess around with electricity.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#494

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #466
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer, yet it is not ionizing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Lower_f...

From that link: > “2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding RF electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimetre waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.” WTF. This was the exact opposite of my understanding until today… ie that non-ionising radiation from the likes of microwaves was not…

Possibly carcinogenic. Some things we know for sure are carcinogenic, but even then what we know is that exposure increases risk in a population by so-and-so percent. It's much harder to work backwards from one individual case of cancer and finding out what the cause was.

It's highly irresponsible and downright cruel to accuse the husband of killing his wife by botched microwave repair based on so little evidence.

What was the location and extent of the original microwave injury? Did the cancer originate in the same spot? What is the proposed mechanism of action? How long is "a few years later"? Can it be ruled out that she didn't have cancer at the time of the microwave incident? What other causes has been considered, other known carcinogens, or a family history? Who made the claim in the first place, did the oncologist blame the husband?

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#495

Post by LeoPanthera »

melenaboija wrote: post #97
dazzawazza wrote: post #3

Big Clive has a good video on why this is dangerous and how to make it more safe. Note: not safe safe, just more safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBeSKL9zVro

It is interesting to see that also exist channels that monetize how to make these experiments less likely to kill you using a 15 minutes video explaining some physics and one diagram. More legit than the ones that kill you faster but still part of the same game, specially seeing the title “The most deadly project of the internet”

There is no need for cynicism. (Did you watch the video?) Big Clive is giving quite strong warnings, safety advice, and, this video is not monetized.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#496

Post by t_mann »

tpxl wrote: post #446
t_mann wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I kinda like the '[discipline X professional] reacts to [relevant movie clips]'-type videos (like 'Navy pilot reacts to new Top Gun movie'). You find them so terrible?

That's simply an appeal to authority, right in the title. I'm an programming professional and most react videos I could make about the art would be better served in another format. Not to mention it's tailored to clickbait.

Appeal to authority is a good point. In terms of clickbait, I feel that applies only when the content doesn't live up to what's promised, and I found the content quite decent in several cases.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#497

Post by 1-more »

elif wrote: post #2

It's terrible how little basic electronic safety is practiced in virtually all of these videos. When we handled high amps in university, we had 3 hours of lecture first simply explaining safety precautions and how to handle accidents. Not to mention, the burnt wood looks so gaudy and uninteresting. I would hardly call it fractal as it only goes 2-3 levels usually, and artistically doesn't usually make sense on furnit…

> Not to mention, the burnt wood looks so gaudy and uninteresting. I would hardly call it fractal as it only goes 2-3 levels usually, and artistically doesn't usually make sense on furniture etc.

There's some point I could make about how this is the worst art anyone has ever died for in history, but we'd end up in the weeds.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#498

Post by imtringued »

hef19898 wrote: post #413
quasarj wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to be funny. Why does it make you sick?

Because promoting baf safety habbits around potentially dangerous stuff to clueless people is a bad idea?

Are you really saying that telling clueless people that they will get painful shocks encourages bad safety habits?

If you show a kid a video about someone intentionally putting e.g. a fake hand on a stove and it getting severe burns and faked screams, what's the likelihood of a child following the video to get the same sick burns vs a video showing that it is perfectly safe to touch the stove?

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#499

Post by laurencerowe »

b112 wrote: post #452
selectodude wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're engineered for restaurants so they're absolute overkill for any home use. Your home toaster isn't going to successfully pump out 400 slices of toast per hour.

They're engineered for home use, that's why they are sold at home depot, on amazon, and in retail outlets. Restaurants buy proper commercial gear, from hospitality supply depots. You don't buy restaurant ovens, and gear, from amazon or home depot. A strong tell is, restaurants aren't looking for candy red, enamel coated stuff. They want stainless, and their gear is hidden away in the kitchen, and they don't want to p…

Maybe not for 400 slices an hour but Dualit toasters are stainless and pretty standard issue at cafes and bed and breakfasts in the UK.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#500

Post by robonerd »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #297
blocked_again wrote: post #38

I think YouTube/Google has a big leadership crisis at the moment. Removing the dislike counter was the obvious sign.

With a dislike counter at least that could signal something is amiss with these videos, but now you just see thumbs up everythings cool guys and the comments can be moderated by the uploader to remove anything negative. Still don't understand why they removed it.

Downvotes hurt the feelings and egos of enough people with the power/leverage to get it changed. Particularly: politicians, corporations, and youtube executives themselves (e.g. Youtube's Rewind videos getting trashed with mass downvotes.)
Post reply on HN