5 comments
(puts fingers in ears and stamps feet) Nah, nah, nah, can't hear you! What a childish little brat.
(puts fingers in ears and stamps feet) Nah, nah, nah, can't hear you! What a childish little brat.
What? Did you actually watch it? Or just make assumptions based on the title?
Because he was comparing the sound of the air horn to some sort of air cannon that was being debated. Demonstrating that the air cannon is 16,000 times quieter, yet still extremely disruptive to anything near by.
What? Did you actually watch it? Or just make assumptions based on the title?
Because he was comparing the sound of the air horn to some sort of air cannon that was being debated. Demonstrating that the air cannon is 16,000 times quieter, yet still extremely disruptive to anything near by.
Guilty as charged. I usually don't click links, especially jewtube. Mainly because most are some sort of clickbait or sensalization misrepresenting the content, such as this. Which was the why of my reply, as it tried to portray exactly what I said.
So just ignore my inane ramblings and carry on.
Guilty as charged. I usually don't click links, especially jewtube. Mainly because most are some sort of clickbait or sensalization misrepresenting the content, such as this. Which was the why of my reply, as it tried to portray exactly what I said.
So just ignore my inane ramblings and carry on.
To be fair, I initially suspected the same thing you did. But it turned out to be far more reasonable.
To be fair, I initially suspected the same thing you did. But it turned out to be far more reasonable.
While I would rather have an actual scientist with data discussing the issue the airhorn prop was logically effective.