Natural resonance: Worse results than breaking wine glasses

[Jinx]

This post refers to the last statement in Cecil's post: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_333.html

Here, it is basically said that some experts believe the common explanation of winds hitting the right frequency of this bridge is over simplified. But, isn't this simply splitting hairs? The text below describes how the cables go slack making the bridge unstable. Ok, but what is the point of origin for this? Was the rbidge haunted? No, it was the wind swaying the bridge at just the right frequency, right? To me, it's like arguing do guns actually kill, or is it really the bullets? The initial cause was the wind; the rest is purely academic, is it not?

Here is the exact text; I added the italics to catch your eye:
"Reader Wilbur Pan has alerted us to a recent report in Science News heaping abuse on this widely held view. Mathematicians Joseph McKenna and Alan Lazer doubt that a storm could produce the perfectly timed winds required. They're working on a "non-linear" model of bridge behavior they hope will provide a better explanation. The main problem apparently is that when the roadway of a lightly constructed suspension bridge flexes, the cables supporting it go slack, introducing an element of unpredictability in which little causes (i.e., the wind) produce big results (i.e., a collapsing bridge). They hope to have the mathematical model describing this effect finished in five years--not the most aggressive schedule in the world, but apparently this is government work. You'll read about it here first."

[DSYoungEsq]

Here is a web page that explains the differences among the theories as to how the bridge failed: Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The main point is that harmonic resonance is almost impossible when wind is the driving force because wind doesn't stay at one speed. Thus, although the wind obviously caused the bridge to oscillate, it didn't do so by blowing at a specific speed, causing harmonic resonance, causing the bridge to move.

[DRomm]

Can't comment on the wine glasses, but Mythbusters took on Bridge resonance. Twice. The first time, they declared it Busted. The second time: Plausible.

Video: Mythbusters - Briddge

While they busted Nicole Tesla's claim of an earthquake machine, I recall (but couldn't find) where they set up an audio resonator on a bridge. Didn't knock it down, but they felt the vibrations.

Vaguely related aside: While audio waves may not break glass, they can make airplane flights better. Bose noise canceling headphones use the opposite of resonance to cancel out sound. Works pretty well. Makes riding a bus or a flight with a crying baby almost tolerable.

This is a subject that hasn't been studies as much as it could. Cecil is on the cutting edge, as usual.

[postpic200]

Myth Buster also showed you could break a glass with an unaltered human voice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXV45t6wlWU

Start at 4:30

[Quercus]

Dude, you stopped watching too soon. Mythbusters also confirmed it's possible to break a wine glass using the human voice.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode31

Now, they had a professional with some serious pipes, so it may not be possible for you to break a glass with your voice, but at least some people have done so.


This thread is of course referencing the classic column re-posted on the front page today: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...eir-high-notes

[Senegoid]

Regarding the recently re-published article: "Can opera singers shatter glass with their high notes?" (Originally published May 11, 1990).

Cecil mentions resonance results (some, admittedly disputed) more serious than broken stemware: A bridge that collapsed under the lock-step marching of soldiers (and they wonder if all the Chinese population jumping from chairs in unison could cause earthquakes! ), and the infamous Galloping Gertie (Tacoma Narrows) bridge collapse. Cecil doesn't mention how many, if any, casualties there were among those soldiers.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge caused only one casualty, a dog trapped in a car that fell into the water. This failed to be a human disaster because it was well known that the bridge was going to collapse like this, and it had been closed. And, in fact, there were video cameras watching for it, so we have some excellent videos of the whole event, which you can easily find on YouTube. (The car on the bridge was of a journalist, who is seen running for his life in some of the videos.)

Okay, now to my point: There actually were, in fact, seriously worse resonance disasters that DID cause substantial loss of life. Specifically, several nearly-new Lockheed Electra airplanes crashed, circa 1960 or so, due to resonance that caused the wings to flap excessively, to the point that the aircrafts just broke apart in flight. (I first read about this several years ago, in a side-bar in my Differential Equations textbook.)

Here, for example, is one article I found on this subject.

Apparently, similar potential problems were discovered during the testing of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

[foolsguinea]

So, did Joseph McKenna and Alan Lazer ever finish their work?

[qazwart]

To answer Timon of Dallas' doubts about the human voice's ability to breaking glass: Glass breaking with nothing but the unamplified human voice: Mythbusters of course.

[John W. Kennedy]

Although video in 1940 is not technically impossible, I rather doubt it.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Although video in 1940 is not technically impossible, I rather doubt it.

Okay, some hired artists sat beside the bridge, day and night for weeks, just waiting for the big splash. When the bridge starting really heaving, they got busy and drew detailed pictures (just like artists in courtrooms), only drawing many many fairly high-resolution pictures per second so a movie could be made of it. Or maybe all those videos drawings silver halide images of the event, as seen on YouTube, are just modern re-dramatizations. Or maybe, if video in 1940 is not technically impossible, somebody really made a video. Or maybe I just used the wrong word for "movie". Or maybe it was all just a hoax that never really happened.

Or are you really doubting that there are pics of the above-mentioned incident on YouTube?

Just go take a look in the Pit to see if I'm there.

[Rico]

<moderator>

Just FYI, I merged three threads on the same subject into one. So if the answers don't quite flow the way they should, you know why. Should not be a problem, though.

Rico

</mod>

[John W. Kennedy]

Silver-halide images are not videos. While we're at it, vinyl LPs are not CDs, adding machines are not computers, Ben-Hur didn't drive an Indy car, and lintels are not arches.

[Nunzio Tavulari]

Pedantry is not necessary.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Nunzio Tavulari

Pedantry is not necessary.

Neither is illiteracy.

[gnoitall]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Neither is illiteracy.

Well, if you're going to be ad-hominem, I'll just point out that your pedantry is simplistic to the point of error.

1. Well before the advent of consumer electromagnetic recording/playback devices, "video" was used for "silver-halide" imaging. For instance, even in my middle school days, it was called "audio-video club". And that was back when electricity was a novelty.
   
2. Related to 1 above, according to the OED, "video" dates back to 1937 at least. Since television technology was then only in its infancy and electromagnetic video recording not yet invented (not until 1951-1952), it's obvious that "video" wasn't restricted to the idea of "video tape".
   
3. Regardless of whatever imaging technology was used in the original recording of the 1940 event, I can assure you that anything you may see now will be "video" in every pedantic hyperliteral sense of the word.

In other words, you don't get to be pedantic unless you are first correct.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by gnoitall

Well, if you're going to be ad-hominem, I'll just point out that your pedantry is simplistic to the point of error.

1. Well before the advent of consumer electromagnetic recording/playback devices, "video" was used for "silver-halide" imaging. For instance, even in my middle school days, it was called "audio-video club". And that was back when electricity was a novelty.
   
2. Related to 1 above, according to the OED, "video" dates back to 1937 at least. Since television technology was then only in its infancy and electromagnetic video recording not yet invented (not until 1951-1952), it's obvious that "video" wasn't restricted to the idea of "video tape".
   
3. Regardless of whatever imaging technology was used in the original recording of the 1940 event, I can assure you that anything you may see now will be "video" in every pedantic hyperliteral sense of the word.

In other words, you don't get to be pedantic unless you are first correct.

1. I don’t much care about misunderstandings you had when you were twelve years old.
   
2. What the Oxford English Dictionary actually says is that video means “that which is displayed or to be displayed on a television screen or other cathode-ray tube; the signal corresponding to this.” The specific quote given for 1937 is “Video, the sight channel in television, as opposed to audio, the sound channel.” And I never mentioned video tape at all.
   
3. And it is bootless to claim that a Youtube copy of the 1940 footage is video now. The original reference was to “video cameras”.
   

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

[Powers]

John, please drop this. It makes you look like an ass.


Powers &8^]

[John W. Kennedy]

Since when has being right been a crime?

Since when has it been perfectly OK to use ambiguous language in order to seem to be saying, “The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me,” when it does not.

The original poster said that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was monitored by video cameras in 1940. I said it wasn’t. Since then, I have been bombarded with half-truths, nonsense, and now direct insults for the great offense of telling the truth.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Since when has being right been a crime?

I didn't say you had committed a crime; I said your unnecessary pedantry is making you look like an ass. It's one thing to mention it; it's another thing entirely to harp on it as if it had anything important to do with anyone's point.


Powers &8^]

[John W. Kennedy]

I’m not “harping on it”. I am responding, one at a time, to foolish, wrong, and sometimes downright dishonest attempts to make someone else’s mistake somehow or other my fault. Quit dogpiling on me, and I’ll quit complaining about being dogpiled on.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

I’m not “harping on it”. I am responding, one at a time, to foolish, wrong, and sometimes downright dishonest attempts to make someone else’s mistake somehow or other my fault. Quit dogpiling on me, and I’ll quit complaining about being dogpiled on.

Wasn't there a video of George Washington warning against this kind of behavior in his farewell address?

Originally Posted by Powers

I didn't say you had committed a crime; I said your unnecessary pedantry is making you look like an ass. It's one thing to mention it; it's another thing entirely to harp on it as if it had anything important to do with anyone's point.


Powers &8^]

Actually, it kinda peeved me even the first time. See post #10 in this (new merged) thread.

[tim314]

Although video in 1940 is not technically impossible, I rather doubt it.

See, I don't mind pedantic, but I do mind when snarkiness inhibits clarity. Is your point that it's film and not video?

In other words, pointing out that someone is misusing the word "video" seems fine to me (on the Dope I mean, where pedantry is somewhat more expected than in real life). But it'd be nice if you actually stated what was wrong with what they said. Something like "That's actually film; (analog) video records onto magnetic tape, a process not common in 1940." (If that's what you're getting at, I'm still not totally sure.)

Someone who thinks video = film is not going to understand why it was unlikely in 1940, since there are clearly movies older than that.

[Mithras]

From the strictly literal definition of video, most things on YouTube are not videos. They're not made for television and rarely are they viewed on a screen that contains a cathode-ray tube. And that's a relatively expansive definition compared to many others (which might specify videotape and the like). The word has a (probably) new usage along the lines of:

a generally short motion picture that can be consumed casually

The difference is evident in the sentence, "I took a break from work and watched a video." If you replace that with film or movie you're much more likely to be fired. Even if the OED today would say that the bridge-film is not a video, I have a feeling that the battle's already been lost and it'll include a definition in the near-future that will cover it.

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

1. I don’t much care about misunderstandings you had when you were twelve years old.
   
2. What the Oxford English Dictionary actually says is that video means “that which is displayed or to be displayed on a television screen or other cathode-ray tube; the signal corresponding to this.” The specific quote given for 1937 is “Video, the sight channel in television, as opposed to audio, the sound channel.” And I never mentioned video tape at all.
   
3. And it is bootless to claim that a Youtube copy of the 1940 footage is video now. The original reference was to “video cameras”.
   

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

Video like many other words in the English language has changed over time, the first known use of video was in about 1935, and was the visual equivalent of audio, thus you had audio video clubs, even before video tape. I could say I have an audio recording of a sound, it could be on record, tape, cd, or stored on a memory stick, but it's still audio, so a video could be stored on film, disk, cd, dvd, etc. So it's not wrong to say video even when its on film. Video basically meant it was record and stored on something. Today most people assume it means tape, cd, dvd, blue ray, disk, or memory, but that mainly because film has all but died out.

But here is the Oxford dictionary defintion.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/video

Video

noun (plural videos)

1 [mass noun] the recording, reproducing, or broadcasting of moving visual images:

2a recording of moving visual images made digitally or on videotape:

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by postpic200

Video like many other words in the English language has changed over time, the first known use of video was in about 1935

and it explicitly referred to television. Stop deliberately confusing the issue.

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

and it explicitly referred to television. Stop deliberately confusing the issue.

When the word video was coined it meaning the visual equivalent of audio.

So the WORD video it didn't explicitly refer to television, in the early days, film was the only medium available for recording television programs before the videotape in about 1956. So any "video" of television programs were stored on film, or are you saying those films of television programs aren't video if they are stored on film? If they are and I show that film in a theater does it suddenly not become video. Think about this most new movies in a modern theater aren't on film but are stored in a digital format, shown through a video projector, in that case do you say you're going to see a video or a movie?

All you're really complaining about is the storage medium.

[John W. Kennedy]

Since most of the responses now contain multiple direct lies about the entry “video” in the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as muddying of the waters by calling in other dictionaries that happen to have the word “Oxford” in their titles, I can no longer see any profit in continuing with this.

Congratulations! You’ve scored a victory for Ignorance.

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Since most of the responses now contain multiple direct lies about the entry “video” in the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as muddying of the waters by calling in other dictionaries that happen to have the word “Oxford” in their titles, I can no longer see any profit in continuing with this.

Congratulations! You’ve scored a victory for Ignorance.

I posted a LINK to the Oxford English Dictionary to the word video so you can check it out yourself. So how it is a lie? Unless you're saying your own source, said dictionary, is wrong.

[gamerunknown]

According to this, the full Oxford English Dictionary is only available to subscribers at oed.

That said, Oxford Dictionaries is published by the Oxford University Press.

I'd say the use of the term "illiteracy" in post #14 would be non-standard without a qualifier, though.

[postpic200]

sorry

http://www.oed.com/ is the link to the Oxford English Dictionary my link was to the oxford dictionaries. Just want to be clear, and I always try to correct my post when I'm wrong. So the link isn't to Oxford English Dictionary, Sorry ignore my the post above. (I see someone beat me to it so I had to quickly edit this post)

But I do have multiple sources that support my meaning.

[Senegoid]

Okay, all youse guys.

Did anyone notice that the original topic of this thread was resonance?

A bit of historical review:
-- The original column discussed whether an opera singer could shatter a wine glass.
-- Cecil brought up the fact that resonance could shatter much bigger things than a wine glass, to-wit: Major bridges.

Enter now senegoid stage left with an OP (post #6 in this merged thread) with some additional material:
-- The Tacoma Narrows ("Galloping Gertie") collapse caused no loss of life, other than one dead dog, and incidentally mentioned that "videos" the whole event can be viewed on YouTube.
-- Questioned if that other bridge collapse, with the soldiers, caused any loss of life.

Moving on to my main point, I then added that resonance (remember resonance?) has been (controversially) implicated in even bigger disasters than that, to-wit: Several commercial plane crashes with very much loss of life.

Enter now John W. Kennedy with nothing better to do in life but nit-pick over my use of the word "videos" (post #9 in this merged thread).

In the 21 posts since then, nobody has written a word about wine glasses, collapsing bridges, falling airplanes, or resonance. (Remember resonance?) Actually, I had hoped that my post would inspire some discussion of resonance and falling airplanes. Instead, all you other guys have jumped on JWK for nit-picking pedantry (which I view as a defense of my admittedly casual use of the word "videos"; thank you, all youse guys), and JWK has just dug in his heels and made himself look like an.... Well, board rules prohibit me from saying what JWK had made himself look like, but Powers (post #17) has already said it anyway. Well put, Powers.

Apparently, my use (or mis-use) of "videos" has "resonated" in this thread and brought it down in flames.

John W. Kennedy, board rules forbid me from commenting that you've acted like a j***, by thread*****ing and hi****ing this thread and then digging in your heels over it. So I'll just let the moderators opine on all that.

I'm calling thread-wreck now. Reported.

And now: Anybody have any useful or interesting discussion to add about resonance (remember resonance?), bridges, or falling airplanes?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Powers

John, please drop this. It makes you look like an ass.]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

John W. Kennedy, board rules forbid me from commenting that you've acted like a j***, by thread*****ing and hi****ing this thread and then digging in your heels over it. So I'll just let the moderators opine on all that.

MODERATOR OPINES: Hey, guys, cut out the personal insults. Use of little asterisks doesn't disguise what you're saying.
I'm not issuing warnings, only because I'm in a hurry this morning and don't have time.

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

Since most of the responses now contain multiple direct lies about ...

Just to clarify for others: calling a POST a "lie" is different from calling the poster a "liar." This issue hasn't come up in this forum before; it is against the rules of Great Debates to call another post a "lie." Since this is the first time (as far as I remember) that this has come up in this forum, I think it's pretty much putting one toe on a fuzzy line. My personal feeling is that the term "lie" when applied to a post implies intent, and so is a personal insult and should henceforth be forbidden. Note how that's different from calling a post "stupid" which says nothing about the poster: intelligent posters can make stupid statements from time to time.

I'm therefore going to start a discussion in the moderator group about use of the word "lie" (as in deliberate fabrication, not as in recline) for future.

Meanwhile, guys, COOL DOWN. And the topic here is resonance, not the diff between OED and OD nor the definition of "video."

[postpic200]

Resonance in airplanes got me thinking about space. Has there ever been an accident or incident that's been blamed on resonance?

[Irishman]

See pogo effect:

In general, pogo oscillation occurs when a surge in engine pressure increases back pressure against the fuel coming into the engine, reducing engine pressure, causing more fuel to come in and increasing engine pressure again. Flexing of fuel pipes can also induce fluctuations in fuel pressure.[3] If the cycle happens to match a resonance frequency of the rocket then dangerous oscillations can occur through positive feedback, which can in extreme cases tear the vehicle apart.

If the oscillation is left unchecked, failures can result. One case occurred in the middle J-2 engine of the second stage, S-II, of the Apollo 13 lunar mission. Fortunately in this case the engine shut down before the oscillations could cause damage to the vehicle.[1] Later events in this mission overshadowed the pogo problem. Pogo was also the cause of some of the serious problems experienced by the unmanned Apollo 6 test flight in 1968.[5] One of the Soviet Union's N1-L3 rocket test flights suffered pogo oscillations in the first stage on November 23, 1972. The launch vehicle reached initial engine cutoff, but exploded 107 seconds after liftoff and disintegrated. There are other cases during unmanned launches in the 50s and 60s where the pogo effect caused catastrophic launch failures.

[postpic200]

Originally Posted by Irishman

See pogo effect:

Sorry I meant spacecraft.