• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A scientific fact/tidbit you recently learned that you thought was interesting

3point14 said:
Vaguley related...


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-the-arctic-5-times/articleshow/111425496.cms
Click to expand...


No evidence albino grizzly bear sent to Arctic after being mistaken for polar bear [Canadian Press]

Rating: False

Several clips in the video that identify a lightly coloured bear as Joey the albino grizzly bear appears to show a different species of bear called the spirit bear, or Kermode bear.

The bear in the video "looks like a Kermode bear and not a grizzly bear," said Holly Reisner, co-executive director of North Shore Black Bear Society, in an email.
...
Reisner added the organization has not heard a case of a bear being mistaken for a polar bear and being shipped to the Arctic happening in the area.

A B.C. wildlife organization also has not heard of the story before.

"Pure fictional content for the purpose of social media clicks," said Gabriela De Romeri, communications co-ordinator with WildSafeBC.

A misidentification like the one suggested in the video would never occur by wildlife experts, De Romeri explained.
Click to expand...

It appears to be just a story.
 
William Parcher said:
It's amazing that the teeth and jawbone can withstand that pressure.
Click to expand...
I haven't tried this on any bowling balls recently (though I might have one or two lying around), but I think there's a great difference between simply crushing one in a hydraulic press (though I am unsurprised that the HP Channel, a great source of entertainment, did so) and a jaw with teeth. At least some bowling balls are filled with a material similar to high density fiberboard, which is heavy and cohesive, but basically sawdust. If you crack the outer surface, which is itself somewhat brittle, then I don't think you need so many tons to demolish the ball.
 
Yes, but that doesn't mean somebody familiar with them wouldn't be able to see the difference. They aren't the same size & shape, particularly in their faces.
 
bruto said:
I haven't tried this on any bowling balls recently (though I might have one or two lying around), but I think there's a great difference between simply crushing one in a hydraulic press (though I am unsurprised that the HP Channel, a great source of entertainment, did so) and a jaw with teeth. At least some bowling balls are filled with a material similar to high density fiberboard, which is heavy and cohesive, but basically sawdust. If you crack the outer surface, which is itself somewhat brittle, then I don't think you need so many tons to demolish the ball.
Click to expand...
Right.......it's one thing to have enough force behind it, but I would think a bear's teeth/jawbones would give before the bowling ball would. I wasn't implying that if you tossed a bear a bowling ball and it was so inclined that it could do it, but the bite itself being strong enough to do so I thought was interesting.
 
William Parcher said:
It's amazing that the teeth and jawbone can withstand that pressure.
Click to expand...

That's in part because that number isn't a pressure at all, it's a force. And it's a force that's applied by a flat surface.

If you apply force with a sharp surface (like teeth), you probably don't need to go to nearly as large a force to get to a pressure that will crack the bowling ball. Now, I don't know if bears really can break bowling balls, but bear teeth versus a hydraulic press is not an apples to apples comparison.
 
This is more technology than science, but the little black box on airplanes/etc isn't black; it's almost always a bright orange (sensible, since that makes it easier to spot).
 
bigred said:
This is more technology than science, but the little black box on airplanes/etc isn't black; it's almost always a bright orange (sensible, since that makes it easier to spot).
Click to expand...
Yup. Always knew that, flew a little many decades ago, but I wonder if they were so from the beginning. Perhaps plain steel gray? But they aren't all that old a tech right? And International Orange, the paint color of the Golden Gate bridge, is of course far older..
 
Last edited:
bigred said:
This is more technology than science, but the little black box on airplanes/etc isn't black; it's almost always a bright orange (sensible, since that makes it easier to spot).
Click to expand...

Jim_MDP said:
Yup. Always knew that, flew a little many decades ago, but I wonder if they were so from the beginning. Perhaps plain steel gray? But they aren't all that old a tech right? And International Orange, the paint color of the Golden Gate bridge, is of course far older..
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder

A flight recorder is an electronic recording device placed in an aircraft for the purpose of facilitating the investigation of aviation accidents and incidents. The device may often be referred to colloquially as a "black box", an outdated name which has become a misnomer—they are now required to be painted bright orange, to aid in their recovery after accidents.
Click to expand...

However, one of the earliest ones was, in fact, encased in a black box.
The first modern flight data recorder, called "Mata-Hari", was created in 1942 by Finnish aviation engineer Veijo Hietala. This black high-tech mechanical box was able to record all required data during test flights of fighter aircraft that the Finnish Air Force repaired or built in its main aviation factory in Tampere, Finland.[4]
Click to expand...
 
But the modern black box as we know it which records voice as well was created by Australian David Warren...(ironically, Australia wasn't at all interested in it, doh)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom