Bouncing Water Droplets Captured By High-Speed Camera (VIDEO)

So what really happens when a drop of water falls?

It might look like it passes directly into the liquid below, but seen through a high-speed camera, it becomes clear that something else surprising actually takes place: the droplet bounces.

See for yourself (and find out why) in the video below, which captures a falling droplet of water shot at 2,000 frames per second, and slowed down to one-sixty-seventh of the original speed.

WATCH:

Comments

[johnsopinion]

I see and understand the 'bouncing'.

I also see a water drop falling a very short distance.

What happens when the distance is increased?

[ssg13565]

Did you look at my milk drop picture link in the comment just before yours?

[ssg13565]

Here is a link to Harold Edgerton's milk drop photo of 1957.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/photography/photographer.php?photographerid=ph019&row=4

According to this, some of his photos were taken with exposures of less than 1/10,000 of a second.

[Terminal1]

Though cool, I am surprised that this wasn't already done 20 years ago. Makes me think of what other basic things like this we haven't captured on high speed film.

Stuff like this should be shown in earth science class.

[PAposter]

Very cool.

[TomR]

It also explains the demise of the Republican party. As teabaggers create a surface tension, the party dwindles in size until it becomes small enough to drown in a bathtub.

No wonder Republicans have an aversion to science.

- Tom

[PAposter]

rotflmao..­.they would claim this was some kind of trickery, hahahahaha!

[duttyfoot]

wow, thats really awesome

[dobberdoss]

Nature is SO cool!

[Nikevich]

The Videos are quite beautiful, as well as being unexpected. "Doc" Edgerton would have loved this.
=+=+=
I don't like to rain on a parade, but "67 times slower" is a logical absurdity! 67 times what? Maybe I'm confused, but probably times the original frame rate, which is 2,000 frames/second. Doing the arithmetic, 2000 times 67 is 134,000, so you subtract 134,000 from the original frame rate and get -132,000. That implies that the video is being displayed backwards (note the minus sign) at one dazzling frame rate!
I dearly hope that saying "one-67th of the original frame rate" is not beyond the understanding of most readers. If it is, our nation is in worse trouble than I thought, and I'm already worried.

[cheechdurden]

Where did you learn math?
67 times slower: 2000/67
67 times faster: 2000*67

What's not to understand?

[ferky123]

You have the equations backwards.

[TexasGiant]

"67 times slower" refers to the playback speed versus the recorded speed.

The event is recorded at 2,000 frames per second, but slowed down during playback to about 30 frames per second. This comes out to 1/67th of the original frame rate speed.

[medic628]

How cool!!!

[Vurt]

that makes me need to go pee

[VirginiaJeff]

Neat-o

[TexasGiant]

Good stuff.

The foley artist went over the top with the dripping sounds though. Not sure why they do that.

[teresa1960]

Very kewl.

[davidhilton1]

beauteous n/t

[PollyTics]

Fascinatin­g....