pfwein wrote:
That is impressive (or crazy or both), but I wonder about the "at least 35 feet" measurement.
Using the old x=(1/2)at^2 equation, measuring t, and solving for x, I'm coming out at substantially below 35'. But I could be wrong, it's hard to say.
By the way, if you liked that clip, you may like this one also:
http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related