About 11 yrs ago, my science teacher demonstrated how stable lycopodium powder is by throwing a match into a small pile of it, and then proceeded to light another match, dump the powder onto the match and create a 3 foot column of fire in the middle of our classroom. One of my favorite memories from HS.
Uh. I don't think that has anything to do with "stability". Regular baking flour will do that. Most things that will already burn, will almost explode if you powderize them and disperse them in a cloud.
@@bearschmidt3180 Sort of. It can only happen with materials that will combust in oxygen, and if the chemical reaction can create enough ambient heat that is enough to keep the combustion going. For instance, I don't think salt will burn if powdered and dispersed in a cloud.
The Russians had manufactured a 21 inch torpedo, the Shkval, during the cold war period to use in their subs whose nose cone was conical in shape with a small disk like structure at the tip of the nose unlike the conventional teardrop shaped torpedoes that existed. This helped to achieve pronounced laminar flow of water as the torpedo which was powered by a ramjet motor travelled at speeds in excess of 200kts. That resulted in a sufficient airgap between the entire length of the torpedo and the water at those speeds coupled with the disc at the nose to prevent any water drag.
Lycopodium powder comes from a vascular plant (usually Lycopodium clavatum) and not mold :) The powder is actually made up of millions of spores, similar in their function to fungal spores, but not the same, as they stem from plants. Ferns and Selaginellas for example also produce spores.
Came looking for this comment haha. They used to use it as flash powder for photography and in pyrotechnic effects for movies ages ago if I recall correctly.
@@demonchromee9217 It doesn't really rhyme, esp. having the pronunciation variant with the stress on the second syllable: it would rhyme nicely with "syringe". There are two pronunciations of "sporange". On the first syllable, it's more of an "oo"-sound than an "oh" sound. The only thing that rhymes closely with "orange" is "door-hinge", pronounced with a natural flow.
don't they have like an antenna infront to create supercavitation instead? So the torpedo flies through a vacuum created by the antenna thingy in front effectively having it only have to fight the drag created by the little ball in front?
Russian rocket-propelled Shkval torpedoes, deployed since the 70s, already do this, leveraging the supercavitating effect of a nosecone that, upon penetrating the water at very high velocity, generate a large bubble of water vapor around the rest of the torpedo. It takes a lot of energy to go fast underwater, but considerably less energy to generate and maintain a supercav bubble around a 26-foot-long torpedo, so they did that. The net result is a torpedo that flies underwater at well over 200 miles per hour.
@introboy1 Yes. At least parts of it were machined and built in parts of USSR that are outside of Russia. But also even when everything was operating well, this torpedo had one major flaw. It could turn very very slowly for it's speed. Which kind of makes sense - it was basically underwater rocket that achieved such speeds, because it maintained a thin bubble of gas around it's body. If it turned too much it would destablize the bubble and it would basically hit the uncompressible liquid. Which at those speeds means destruction. And flame out of the engine. So it had basically like 3-4 very "delicate" (meaning they had to be accurate and work without any issues) systems that had to work perfectly for it to become simply an "underwater rocket" that could turn enough to make corrections but nothing else. And of course they iterated on it and improved it, but even if everything was okay - it would be massively, orders of magnitude more expensive. And while I can't confirm that, I did hear that it was sufficiently different that it required it's own fire control systems. Which makes sense, but also means that it could only be fired from new submarines that had it installed or retrofitted ones. Which is massive increase of cost for system that even during it's best years had problems turning and had reliability in 20 something percent of cases. There were also range and communication issues - again, marvelous system, but it had so many new innovative parts that it had serious issues working.
@@HUgdJHf64If the US broke apart it would actually be good for the people, as opposed to the dissolution of the USSR which plunged millions into poverty and set formerly peaceful countries against each other
This exists. Cavitating torpedoes move fast enough that the nose cavitates the water as it hits it, encasing the rest of the torpedo in a cavitation bubble removing most of the skin friction. I've seen one design with a nose that is flat rather than pointed, but it's at a slight angle rather than being perfectly 90 degrees to the centerline of the torpedo. This creates an asymmetric cavitation bubble. The fixed fins near the rear are long enough that the tips stick out a bit beyond the cavitation bubble into the liquid region. By then rotating the nose, it rotates the asymmetric cavitation bubble around the vehicle, which exposes the fins on one side to more liquid water than the other. This increases drag on that side which makes the torpedo steer in that direction. To go straight it just has to spin the nose fast enough that the effect gets averaged out across all fins evenly. Edit: Mad Scientific (see their comment further down) made an important correction/distinction to my comment. Super cavitating torpedoes do not actually exceed the speed of sound in water. You do not actually have to move faster than the speed of sound in water in order to cavitate it, although these still are the fastest torpedoes ever produced. Additionally it seems there are tricks you can do to reduce the velocity required to sustain a cavitation bubble such as by having a heated nose cone.
@@SomeGuy-vo7we Oh yeah and surely you’re above average, part of the intellectual elite, right? Bruh it’s just neat to watch interesting phenomena for entertainment and see how certain laws work irl
Many years ago I read about an experimental sailboard idea where they introduced bubbles to the underside of a sailboard, which is almost a flat plane and only about 2.5' wide. Those dimensions make it relatively easy to distribute lots of bubbles all across. It was reported they got an instant burst of speed in the form of continuous accelleration, until the board 'spun out' due to bubbles clinging to the skeg, which is the vertical fin at the back of the board that provided lateral resistance, allowing the sailor to sail. Speed by these bubbles actually wasn't the focus at the time, so they didn't pursue this any further, which amazed me and to this day I don't know why the concept hasn't been explored more.
There's actually two more methods: continually generate a gas bubble at the forward point like supercavitating torpedoes ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo ) or you could coat it with hydrophobic plastic like is used for modern ketchup bottles.
wait they're using hydrophobic plastic in ketchup bottles? i mean there are people specifically tasked to make it impossible to get the last 10 something percent out so you'll have to buy new condiments earlier, so that sounds nice
@@tobbleboii5988 No, they're using it so the ketchup (other semi-solid products as well) doesn't stick to the container; it will all come out. Hydrophobic, not hydrophilic.
@@bob_._. hehe no i got that right. But the ketchup and mainly mayo bottles we have here are usually shaped in a way that keeps the rest in. The mayo doesn't even stick to the bottle, but the lower end (or upper end once you turn it around) is a bit larger to keep it from flowing down. It's quite elegant for being so sinister. We've got a mayo bottle here that's been standing upside down for some three months and a quarter still hasn't flown to the bottom :/
If it's dropped into the ocean, I think there should be a point where the pressure compresses the air pocket to make it fail. That will be a super fun experiment
Some subs, ships and even torpedoes utilize the injection of air or gas at the leading edge of contact to reduce the friction that would otherwise be present, this in turn increases the speed at which the object can travel as well as reduces the power required to displace the volume of water it encounters. You'll be surprised how long they've been using this technique, it's been around for decades although not at all widely known.
Do you think they could or already use similar substances to coat the submersibles and torpedoes? The air injection seems pretty cleaver but what if they just powder coat the objects, could they in essence go fast as f#@&? Same with boats, could the hulls of boats be coated in this stuff to just glide over the seas? or would it eventually get saturated over time. Im only asking here because i didnt know about this stuff and you seem to know something about this stuff.
I've been telling people about Plasma Air Reduction where by you apply electric current in front of a projectile ionizing the air around it creating a bubble around the projectile minimizing drag
But drag of air is already miniscule... Lowering it at the cost of complicated expansive machinery on every projectile..... Is completely pointless.... Unless it is very cheap and reduces drag significantly to use on for example nose (and not wings, you need drag there) of airliners to save fuel. Maybe. But certainly not on ammo, or even missiles.
@@muskreality Wouldn't that be counter intuitive to how an aircraft functions? Unless you are using a gimballed rocket engine and attitude control thrusters the aircraft would have no way to turn or gain lift which at that point you just have a rocket that has no drag correct? lol.
"In fact..." Every time I hear that phrase from Action Lab Guy I feel like right now I'm gonna acknowledge some life teaching that can change the world
I remember seeing a video where the Navy was experimenting on a torpedo by putting an air nozzle in front of the bullet shaped torpedo and shot compressed air through the nozzle as the torpedo went towards its target and the results were amazing on how it changed the speed and accuracy.
Military already have supercavitating tordedoes, they use some weird geometry on their front tips to create steam around the projectile, allowing those torpedoes to reach mach speeds even in water
@@XGamerGuy101 holy sh!t it's literally either a typo that happens very often especially with the E and A on an azerty keyboard or maybe they don't have perfect English, classic RUclips comments
@@mr16325 oooohhh! Riiight! Never thought about that, good point. So it's like using torpedoes from a submarine to take out the . . . Ducks . . . Ok . . . (This is not sarcasm by the way, I really didn't think about that, I was thinking the only thing they would be used to destroy would be under-water things)
Boats push water behind to move forward. If there's isn't any contact with water, it won't work the way you expect my mate. Might be helpful to wind driven boats.
Hydrophobic coating cost a lot thoo :/ and obviously it has to be re-done regularly, which for a boat means either going on dry dock or paying divers to do it :/ also very expensive. But is does reduce fuel consumption, generates more profit with the added speed... Essentially it kind of makes sense for some boats but not all of them.
@@tigerclaw4537 likely that its just a blurry object flying over the horizon and earth curve, and appearing to go into the water and "not making a splash" is a result of that
@@tigerclaw4537 I don't think that's correct. As matter of fact Commander Fravor and the other fighter jet pilots first saw the disturbance in the water which was what made them spot the tic tac craft visually.
If we can agree on something is that this guy would be the perfect science teacher Edit: I was the top comment in the last video and on this one I’m third thank you so much guys
I can distinctly remember watching a video about a German torpedo that "flew" through water, by redirecting part of its exhaust to the tip of the torpedo - essentially creating an air bubble to fly through.
This principle is actually applied to Shipbuilding. There are ships which shoot air bubbles continuously around the hull surface while it’s on voyage to decrease drag and reduce power required or increase speed. Although, it’s still relatively new and advanced technology and those kinds of ships are still very rare.
Always hated how simple little oxygen got beat up by two holier-than-thou hydrogen jerks... never ended well... just a wet sloppy mess that got my towels wet.
Does this reduce the forces experienced on the initial impact of the object and the water? I.e. could it make it safer for someone to drop onto water from higher distances.
@@lowkey7671 no, it's caused from surface tension, and I think OP might very well be onto something with that question if covering yourself to be hydrophobic would just slip through that
@@industrialdonut7681 it's caused by both. Hydrophobic materials don't magically decrease interaction with liquids to zero, they only repel the water so that it can move alongside them with low friction. When you're falling at terminal velocity onto water your main problem is the inertia of water, which really doesn't want to move out of your way, as it first needs to move the water around it to even start accelerating outwards. A person covered in a hydrophobic material would pancake onto the surface just as much as if not covered.
@@DeuxisWasTaken he says in the video it reduces the drag coefficient by a factor of 10 or something, that is the effect to do with momentum and slowing down from displacing the water. If it's that low, it's like if you could fall from space into a pool of air almost, you won't pancake from that. It is the surface tension which creates a literal hard-surface that you smack into and die on, not anywhere near as much as the drag especially if you're only talking about falling at terminal velocity through air and not like many hundreds or more meters per second.
so, say you throw a weight to break the surface tension. Would you just descend hundreds of meters in a go? Perhaps presure would smush your organs before running out of air
no this has allready been attempted,although by much different means.im not sure if these are in active use currently or still in the r and d phase though.but I do know it's been tinkered with
@@paolorubenmastretta and you bring up a major point on one weakness I could see them having.cavitation.this makes a shit ton of noise,so they won't be hard to miss.im not even sure how you could make something like this silent running.and I think from a more practical war standpoint it would be better to have a slow stealth torpedo the enimy can't see coming as opposed to a fast but stupidly loud torpedo they can detect in advance and counter.and by loud,I mean in terms of sonar.and also,remember that cavitation is also destructive,so that could present issues of itself.we see this on boat props all the time.
@@richardpeterson3753 the destruction of the torpedo is not a problem given the absence of contact between it and the water, about the fact that is better a stealth torpedo I could agree with but given the fact that they can get pretty close to a surface group and given how fast they're they could be successful, after all if they produced them...
@@richardpeterson3753 i believe this concept has been used and the issue of noise isn't a concern because the torpedo travels so fast that there's nothing that can be done about it anyway.
2:51 It's always interesting to hear all the variants english speakers use when trying to pronounce the german "ei" e.g. in Leidenfrost. The funny thing is, it is not a special sound at all and regularly used in english: It's just the sound the letter "I" makes, or the word "eye". And while we are on the topic, I very often see that people switch the "e" and "i" around, writing "ie" when they want to write "ei", but this is pronounced completely different, more like the first sound in "eagle" but with a longer emphasis. Probably why this typo is so much more noticable to native german speakers. Thanks for attending my TED Talk.
Very high speed boats have used that concept for around a century now. Hydrofoils and (maybe more appropriate) hulls with large steps or notches to create air cavities that cut drag.
I feel like this has incredible potential, not just for weaponry, but even underwater vehicles. Imagine being able to take advantage of the buoyancy of water's density while cutting through it like a airplane through atmosphere.
It seems like it would make a lot of sense to coat actual torpedoes, submarines and even high-performance boats in a super-hydrophobic coating then. If we can manage to produce a coating that is cheap enough and robust enough to last a while it might conceivably even be worth the added maintenance and cost for the speed and fuel-savings on large transport ships. Hydrophobic materials aren't rare these days, but durability is probably an problem for many applications. I think there is still a lot of potential in material sciences for these sorts of coatings - not just hydrophobic, but also ones that reduce air resistance.
@@Morningstar_37 That would be pretty funny, but sadly I don't think we can overcome the force of gravity (and thus buoyancy) with a simple coating. Things would get quite interesting if that were possible :)
Anyone ever notice that because of the line created by his microphone cable on his shirt, it sorta looks like hes wearing a scrub top if you look too quickly
We still float, also water pressure is another factor, it works for this but once you get deeper and deeper there is still a ton of weight pressing in on you
I don't think so - air is a compressible fluid, so a bubble merely changing size isn't proof of cavitation. A good example would start with no air at all, producing a bubble of water vapour due to reduced pressure which then collapses back into water once the pressure rises again.
I went to a school to learn traditional wooden boat building, and one of the dudes there was a retired naval engineer who had spent years working on a system to have subs and torpedos excrete a goo on their surface similar to that used by dolphins, in order to go faster with same power output, or go similar speed but with less fuel used, so increased range. They went with dolphin mimicking goo vs. Fish mimmicking goo, because it was less susceptible to being rubbed off, if i remember correctly. The system worked, but the goo excreting system took up as much payload capacity as the fuel saved, so it wasn't practical for the intended use.
@@nerobernardino88 can't mess with the front cuz the front creates the flow that lets the torpedo move basically picture dropping a cube and dropping a sphere into water the sphere should fall faster cuz the water doesn't get caught on the sphere
@@nerobernardino88 Blades at the front would be useless thats why they are on the back and i dont know how well a jet engine would work underwater, those used for the icbm on subs only need to go for a few meters before exiting water in case thats what you were thinking
The beginning of this video seems to explain how my method of adding more sugar to my coffee than is needed, in order to add more coffee later without adding more sugar actually works.
Bouyancy is the resistance of water pushing up on you. By being hydrophobic, the water pushing up would instead slip around you, causing you to sink quickly (like the ball in the video).
This is fascinating. I’m now curious what it would be like to pour water into a bucket that is super hydrophobic. Would the water actually be “in the bucket”? Or would it have air around it
I learn so much from every video you make. I wonder if hydrophobic coatings are legal in competitive swimming (maybe leaving the palms and bottom of feet uncoated)?
5:39 That was actually a cool ass summary statement/conclusion at the end. I really appreciate that. Sounded very scientifically reminiscent of all the research papers I’ve read and written. The ‘So What’. I subscribed.
I wonder if this can be applied to bullets? Bullets are known to lose all velocity once fired into water. Will a hydrophobic coated bullet be able to maintain its effect underwater?
@@petergerdes1094 It's both. I believe this actually leads to faster bullets losing speed quicker underwater despite having more kinetic energy. But there are some prototype bullet designs that use the same supercavitation everyone is talking about in the comments with torpedo designs, and they're very interesting to watch. Look up DSG Cav-X Bullets.
Woodleigh makes hypercavitating hydrostatically stabilized bullets that use a contoured nose to push material out away from the bullet. They are used in big game hunting.
I don't think it would be useful for naval submarines. See those pockets of "air" following the ball on its descent? Those are water cavitations and they make noise when they implode, and bigger cavitations make louder noises. An enemy boat will be able to hear them. Besides that, moving fast in a naval submarine is only useful if it's peacetime, in territorial waters, in an emergency, or (by some miracle) if can be done quietly. It would still be fun to try some thing like it on a civilian sub.
You should have added the comparison when the ball goes through empty cylinder v/s when it is hydrophobic in water containing cylinder... That'd had been better bro..👍
Surrounding an object with a pocket of air traveling through a liquid reduces drag, kind of like the idea of surrounding a spaceship with negative energy to warp space both in front of and behind the craft would allow you to theoretically move fast with space. Alcubierre Drive.
There's a Norwegian company making supercavitating ammunition that does basically this exact thing. Instead of slowing to a halt after a meter or two, supercavitating rounds can travel up to 15m before stopping. For a SEAL or something fighting underwater, that literally makes them bulletproof. They could shoot at enemy guards on land with impunity, while being protected from all return fire due to the water. Assuming the guards even knew where the shots were coming from! You see a guy's head explode, the last place most people start looking is down. You'd be thinking there's a sniper up on a perch somewhere.
I’ve had this idea that I want you to try, Can you take a one way mirror and point it toward a normal mirror and then look through the one way mirror to see if your able to see the infinite loop? Doing this you shouldn’t have your own head interfering like it does when you look in between two normal mirrors
The number of images would not be infinite because after every reflection the image formed would be a little bit dimmer because light would lose energy after every reflection Our standard mirrors reflect about 98 something percent light 2 percent is absorbed so the image formed after every reflection is 2 percent dimmer so after enough reflections there will be no image if you have a mirror which reflects 100 percent light even then infinite images aren't possible Because suppose you have two mirrors apart at a distance of 300,000 m then light would take one seconds to travel to the mirror on the opposite end so its one reflection per second so it would take *INFINITE* amount of *time* to make infinite images ................
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy is dangerously persuasive, almost made me buy a torpedo
Oh no 😬
:oh_no:
Ar in dam
🤓
✌
Almost?
About 11 yrs ago, my science teacher demonstrated how stable lycopodium powder is by throwing a match into a small pile of it, and then proceeded to light another match, dump the powder onto the match and create a 3 foot column of fire in the middle of our classroom. One of my favorite memories from HS.
Uh. I don't think that has anything to do with "stability". Regular baking flour will do that. Most things that will already burn, will almost explode if you powderize them and disperse them in a cloud.
@@karozans yeah that can also happen with sugar
It can happen to any dry material that is ground down to very fine particulates.
@@bearschmidt3180 Sort of. It can only happen with materials that will combust in oxygen, and if the chemical reaction can create enough ambient heat that is enough to keep the combustion going. For instance, I don't think salt will burn if powdered and dispersed in a cloud.
Yeah my teacher showed the explosives power of baking flour with a coffee can
The Action Lab always comes up with the most fascinating and informative videos with topics, that I had zero prior knowledge about
Yes Im first this time
@@Thanos-hp1mw dude, you missed a lot of people! We need to get the infinity stones and do this shit over.
Where is your mustache
i will protecc him you degenate like wanters
Can you stop stalking me please
The Russians had manufactured a 21 inch torpedo, the Shkval, during the cold war period to use in their subs whose nose cone was conical in shape with a small disk like structure at the tip of the nose unlike the conventional teardrop shaped torpedoes that existed. This helped to achieve pronounced laminar flow of water as the torpedo which was powered by a ramjet motor travelled at speeds in excess of 200kts. That resulted in a sufficient airgap between the entire length of the torpedo and the water at those speeds coupled with the disc at the nose to prevent any water drag.
your brain is beyond my understanding
🤔interesting
@@hi-xt2wh you cant understand a simple statement?
So whats happens if we add hydrophobic abilities to shkval?
@@hi-xt2wh Just find a picture of te Shkval from somewhere. You will understand.
You should try making a whole container, like a small cup, hydrophobic, see how it handles when full of water.
Vote this to make it next video
@@arindamchandrapathak8318 yeah
It would probably just be a normal cup but the water is *slippy*
@@x3dwany371 ah yes slippery water.
Any brand-new non-stick pan is exactly that. They behave like any other container filled with water.
Lycopodium powder comes from a vascular plant (usually Lycopodium clavatum) and not mold :)
The powder is actually made up of millions of spores, similar in their function to fungal spores, but not the same, as they stem from plants. Ferns and Selaginellas for example also produce spores.
Came looking for this comment haha. They used to use it as flash powder for photography and in pyrotechnic effects for movies ages ago if I recall correctly.
That’s really cool lol
spores? fun fact: sporangium shortened is sporange, wich rhymes with orange
@@demonchromee9217
It doesn't really rhyme, esp. having the pronunciation variant with the stress on the second syllable: it would rhyme nicely with "syringe". There are two pronunciations of "sporange".
On the first syllable, it's more of an "oo"-sound than an "oh" sound. The only thing that rhymes closely with "orange" is "door-hinge", pronounced with a natural flow.
Imagine jumping to a pool with a mysterious yellow substance on top...
Fun Fact : Military has used this for a long time. Modern torpedoes fired from a Submarine is coated in a special material that is Hydrophobic
don't they have like an antenna infront to create supercavitation instead? So the torpedo flies through a vacuum created by the antenna thingy in front effectively having it only have to fight the drag created by the little ball in front?
@Moritz Messner Anything post ww2 is somewhat modern.
Nooo..GunTer said MORE VASELINE!!!
it’s pretty obvious the military would use this considering they use torpedos and the video mentions torpedos having a very low coefficient of drag.
@@carlosandleon russians are the only ones to have supercavitating torpedo called shkval
"The force is stronger between liquid-solid than between the liquid-liquid." Imagined that in Vader's voice.
*_Breathing is now set to Manual_*
@@infinity5288 noooo now I’m breathing manually. *You are now blinking and swallowing manually*
@@samienr *blink blink* excuse you
Liquid-solid sound close to metal gear
The Force is strong with solid one
Russian rocket-propelled Shkval torpedoes, deployed since the 70s, already do this, leveraging the supercavitating effect of a nosecone that, upon penetrating the water at very high velocity, generate a large bubble of water vapor around the rest of the torpedo.
It takes a lot of energy to go fast underwater, but considerably less energy to generate and maintain a supercav bubble around a 26-foot-long torpedo, so they did that. The net result is a torpedo that flies underwater at well over 200 miles per hour.
TBF - the issue was with reliability. At least that much we know (though not all the details).
@introboy1 Yes. At least parts of it were machined and built in parts of USSR that are outside of Russia. But also even when everything was operating well, this torpedo had one major flaw. It could turn very very slowly for it's speed. Which kind of makes sense - it was basically underwater rocket that achieved such speeds, because it maintained a thin bubble of gas around it's body. If it turned too much it would destablize the bubble and it would basically hit the uncompressible liquid. Which at those speeds means destruction. And flame out of the engine. So it had basically like 3-4 very "delicate" (meaning they had to be accurate and work without any issues) systems that had to work perfectly for it to become simply an "underwater rocket" that could turn enough to make corrections but nothing else.
And of course they iterated on it and improved it, but even if everything was okay - it would be massively, orders of magnitude more expensive. And while I can't confirm that, I did hear that it was sufficiently different that it required it's own fire control systems. Which makes sense, but also means that it could only be fired from new submarines that had it installed or retrofitted ones. Which is massive increase of cost for system that even during it's best years had problems turning and had reliability in 20 something percent of cases. There were also range and communication issues - again, marvelous system, but it had so many new innovative parts that it had serious issues working.
introboy1 what are you saying? are we going to break apart just like them?
@@HUgdJHf64If the US broke apart it would actually be good for the people, as opposed to the dissolution of the USSR which plunged millions into poverty and set formerly peaceful countries against each other
I heard they rain-x-ed their torpedoes.
30 years later : Hey guys this is a full tutorial to make a torpedo!
Atomic bomb* 😂
If RUclips allows it
There's already DIY of cardboard bazooka on YT...
You get where I'm going next? 😏
@@Alasswolf *Oh no...*
Teleportation device 😂😂
Imagine an underwater projectile accelerating till it actually makes a sonic boom. Wonder what that would look like
This exists. Cavitating torpedoes move fast enough that the nose cavitates the water as it hits it, encasing the rest of the torpedo in a cavitation bubble removing most of the skin friction. I've seen one design with a nose that is flat rather than pointed, but it's at a slight angle rather than being perfectly 90 degrees to the centerline of the torpedo. This creates an asymmetric cavitation bubble. The fixed fins near the rear are long enough that the tips stick out a bit beyond the cavitation bubble into the liquid region. By then rotating the nose, it rotates the asymmetric cavitation bubble around the vehicle, which exposes the fins on one side to more liquid water than the other. This increases drag on that side which makes the torpedo steer in that direction. To go straight it just has to spin the nose fast enough that the effect gets averaged out across all fins evenly.
Edit: Mad Scientific (see their comment further down) made an important correction/distinction to my comment. Super cavitating torpedoes do not actually exceed the speed of sound in water. You do not actually have to move faster than the speed of sound in water in order to cavitate it, although these still are the fastest torpedoes ever produced. Additionally it seems there are tricks you can do to reduce the velocity required to sustain a cavitation bubble such as by having a heated nose cone.
Further reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo
Sonic bloop?
Sound travels through solids the fastest, then liquid, then air. I would say the Sonic boom wouldn't make a noise at all.
The speed of sound in water is much faster, that's part of why you can detect the projectile before it hits you.
I remember reading a magazine article where hypercavitation was used to make the torpedo hydrophobic
US military is taking notes
😂😂😂
Who do you think developed these technologies?
China have more money.
Make me think of Supercavitating torpedo
The Russians, how ever, are not.
It's surprising how much content you can juice out from physics
Straight facts from my brother here
Yeah, average folks are amazed by physics when you dumb it down enough for them.
@@SomeGuy-vo7we Oh yeah and surely you’re above average, part of the intellectual elite, right?
Bruh it’s just neat to watch interesting phenomena for entertainment and see how certain laws work irl
@@starstencahl8985 he never stated he was smart you are just offended
@@basedguns8218 No, the comment was just written in such an arrogant tone, it pissed me off
Many years ago I read about an experimental sailboard idea where they introduced bubbles to the underside of a sailboard, which is almost a flat plane and only about 2.5' wide. Those dimensions make it relatively easy to distribute lots of bubbles all across. It was reported they got an instant burst of speed in the form of continuous accelleration, until the board 'spun out' due to bubbles clinging to the skeg, which is the vertical fin at the back of the board that provided lateral resistance, allowing the sailor to sail. Speed by these bubbles actually wasn't the focus at the time, so they didn't pursue this any further, which amazed me and to this day I don't know why the concept hasn't been explored more.
Mythbusters shot guns into water and the bullets barely penetrated. Action lab should retest this experiment with hydrophobic bullets.
uh, his beaker will break
It still won’t work. Bullets are just to fast to enter water
@@Music-if1nv 😂
The Action Lab + Mythbusters + Taofledermaus
You need to make sure hydrophobic coating doesn’t burn away inside the chamber.
I recall a high-speed torpedo that uses "supercavitation" to achieve the effect, and travels through the water much faster than a normal object.
Yes, it’s called Shkval and is invented during the 60s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
speed is 300km/h right?
@@skwal5464 the latest variants are capable of over 500km/h ( 560 km /h ) read the article in Wikipedia.
@@flappingflight8537 There is also a ship using supercavitation now.
@@flappingflight8537 It can also fit a nuclear warhead. Spooky.
Imagine a prankster using this powder on the surface of a diving pool…
@Moonlight io yeah, i can imagine that.
ｏｈ ｓｈｉｄ ｈｅ ｄｅｄ
Genius. You sadistic genius
YO HE FUCKIN DED
😈😈😈😈😈😈
There's actually two more methods: continually generate a gas bubble at the forward point like supercavitating torpedoes ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitating_torpedo ) or you could coat it with hydrophobic plastic like is used for modern ketchup bottles.
True.
wait they're using hydrophobic plastic in ketchup bottles?
i mean there are people specifically tasked to make it impossible to get the last 10 something percent out so you'll have to buy new condiments earlier, so that sounds nice
@@tobbleboii5988 No, they're using it so the ketchup (other semi-solid products as well) doesn't stick to the container; it will all come out. Hydrophobic, not hydrophilic.
@@bob_._. hehe no i got that right. But the ketchup and mainly mayo bottles we have here are usually shaped in a way that keeps the rest in. The mayo doesn't even stick to the bottle, but the lower end (or upper end once you turn it around) is a bit larger to keep it from flowing down. It's quite elegant for being so sinister. We've got a mayo bottle here that's been standing upside down for some three months and a quarter still hasn't flown to the bottom :/
@@tobbleboii5988 just like how they shortened the life on lightbulbs, kinda.
Man, he explains way better than Any of my Phd. teachers, such a great explaination with core concept, keep up the good work
Just one thing to say here, i want him as my science professor
Me too.
Let's make his copies.
Yes!!!!!
@@archanasoni3495 Lets make his clonessss cmonnn
I’m curious how deep the ball would go and still maintain the hydrophobic air bubble around it.
Meeeee too. If that stuff doesn't wash off it would be awesome.
If it's dropped into the ocean, I think there should be a point where the pressure compresses the air pocket to make it fail. That will be a super fun experiment
@@KevinRamesh oh! Yes that would be fun
I'm thinking about the 300 meter mark the pressure will crush the air bubble and it'll fall normally
And would the difference in speed keep only increase with depth? And when would it reach a limit?
Some subs, ships and even torpedoes utilize the injection of air or gas at the leading edge of contact to reduce the friction that would otherwise be present, this in turn increases the speed at which the object can travel as well as reduces the power required to displace the volume of water it encounters. You'll be surprised how long they've been using this technique, it's been around for decades although not at all widely known.
Do you think they could or already use similar substances to coat the submersibles and torpedoes? The air injection seems pretty cleaver but what if they just powder coat the objects, could they in essence go fast as f#@&? Same with boats, could the hulls of boats be coated in this stuff to just glide over the seas? or would it eventually get saturated over time. Im only asking here because i didnt know about this stuff and you seem to know something about this stuff.
I've been telling people about Plasma Air Reduction where by you apply electric current in front of a projectile ionizing the air around it creating a bubble around the projectile minimizing drag
Have you seen the patents of Thomas Townsend Brown?
This sounds exactly like the usa UFOs tech
But drag of air is already miniscule... Lowering it at the cost of complicated expansive machinery on every projectile..... Is completely pointless.... Unless it is very cheap and reduces drag significantly to use on for example nose (and not wings, you need drag there) of airliners to save fuel. Maybe. But certainly not on ammo, or even missiles.
Am actually talking about aircrafts
@@muskreality Wouldn't that be counter intuitive to how an aircraft functions? Unless you are using a gimballed rocket engine and attitude control thrusters the aircraft would have no way to turn or gain lift which at that point you just have a rocket that has no drag correct? lol.
"In fact..."
Every time I hear that phrase from Action Lab Guy I feel like right now I'm gonna acknowledge some life teaching that can change the world
I remember seeing a video where the Navy was experimenting on a torpedo by putting an air nozzle in front of the bullet shaped torpedo and shot compressed air through the nozzle as the torpedo went towards its target and the results were amazing on how it changed the speed and accuracy.
"If your ball is not hydrophobic"
--The Action Lab 2021
My balls are not homophobic
@@OwOw_it_Lily that’s great,
it's summer here, what's the opposite?
@@trif55 Summer *there*
@@trif55 "It's not summer here"
I always love how in-depth you go, you also always have a demonstration that look amazing!
Well done, Sir! Wonderfully explained in an order that makes sense to us laymen . Keep 'em coming!
Military already have supercavitating tordedoes, they use some weird geometry on their front tips to create steam around the projectile, allowing those torpedoes to reach mach speeds even in water
That's why when I go swimming I cover myself in Alka-Seltzer tablets
I use mushrooms
@@tactcom7 you guys both end up the same - foaming. lol
Imagine just jumping in and going through the water
Hmmmm... :-I
ka-bom
Yaaayyyyyy ! Another video with Shkval torpedoes, supercavitation bubbles and boundary layers please ! =)
At this point I am starting to think he is an Alian who tells us things we haven't even started thinking of yet
Wow Noice alien language"Alian"
Alian wow
but this is well known information only not everyone knows this since its not practically applicable in everyday life
@@XGamerGuy101 holy sh!t it's literally either a typo that happens very often especially with the E and A on an azerty keyboard or maybe they don't have perfect English, classic RUclips comments
In school.
The US Navy be like:
*I'll take your entire stock!*
thanks for revealing old time technologies
Now I'm heading to the local pond. Ducks be aware
You mean fish
@@arn3107 ducks live in ponds
@@somerandomnarutofan3504 but they don't live under water do they?
@@arn3107 ships aren’t underwater are they? They get hit by torpedoes
@@mr16325 oooohhh! Riiight!
Never thought about that, good point. So it's like using torpedoes from a submarine to take out the . . . Ducks . . . Ok . . .
(This is not sarcasm by the way, I really didn't think about that, I was thinking the only thing they would be used to destroy would be under-water things)
Imagine how much fuel usage this could save on boats/ships/submarines, that would be quite interesting to see in action
Yep! Many new boats are starting to use hydrophobic hydrofoils to save fuel, keep boats quieter for marine life, and get a faster boat.
Boats push water behind to move forward. If there's isn't any contact with water, it won't work the way you expect my mate.
Might be helpful to wind driven boats.
@@gourav2001k what about everything except the propellers?
Hydrophobic coating cost a lot thoo :/ and obviously it has to be re-done regularly, which for a boat means either going on dry dock or paying divers to do it :/ also very expensive. But is does reduce fuel consumption, generates more profit with the added speed... Essentially it kind of makes sense for some boats but not all of them.
@@joeledwards6587 yup that's a nice idea
Maybe use some airgell impregnated solution to coat the torpedo, that way the torpedo would never touch the water as you can make aerogell hydrophobe.
So this is how those UFO’s can move from air to ocean instantly without any resistance....cool
Never thought about it. Great idea!
That was my first thought as well.
Definitely
@@tigerclaw4537 likely that its just a blurry object flying over the horizon and earth curve, and appearing to go into the water and "not making a splash" is a result of that
@@tigerclaw4537 I don't think that's correct. As matter of fact Commander Fravor and the other fighter jet pilots first saw the disturbance in the water which was what made them spot the tic tac craft visually.
If we can agree on something is that this guy would be the perfect science teacher
Edit: I was the top comment in the last video and on this one I’m third thank you so much guys
Truuu🇮🇳🇮🇳
@hv a gooday ???
Yeh
With the edu system, you would need a diploma though.
@@ic9459 I think he has some sort of diploma relating to science, not sure tho
Every vid on this channel is a winner.
Instructions unclear, bought a torpedo
HEY CODY KO!! Total validation for that frictionless biz.
Me: How can I run faster in the rain?
The Action Lab: Mold Spores...
😐😐😐
Lycopodium powder actually comes from Lycopodiums (clubmosses), not mould hehe.
I can distinctly remember watching a video about a German torpedo that "flew" through water, by redirecting part of its exhaust to the tip of the torpedo - essentially creating an air bubble to fly through.
Basically, turning boats into airplanes.
3:25 Lycopodium powder is made from spores of a moss plant, not from mould.
This principle is actually applied to Shipbuilding. There are ships which shoot air bubbles continuously around the hull surface while it’s on voyage to decrease drag and reduce power required or increase speed. Although, it’s still relatively new and advanced technology and those kinds of ships are still very rare.
The Action Lab is now a weapon's specialist making frictionless torpedoes for the government.
First reply before this comment blows upppp:)
There's already bullets that can go underwater and penetrate for a long distance we've had this technology for decades now.
@@acefromwithin2079 that long distance is 25 meters only
alright guys, when are we cancelling hydrophobic objects? water has feelings too
I'm 65% water, this highly offends me.
@@noncarbon5320 ohhh damn.
@@noncarbon5320 70%
Amen and awomen and awater
Always hated how simple little oxygen got beat up by two holier-than-thou hydrogen jerks... never ended well... just a wet sloppy mess that got my towels wet.
Would be interesting to see how hydrostatic pressure affects the air pocket.
Does this reduce the forces experienced on the initial impact of the object and the water? I.e. could it make it safer for someone to drop onto water from higher distances.
That impact is caused by inertia, so no
@@lowkey7671 no, it's caused from surface tension, and I think OP might very well be onto something with that question if covering yourself to be hydrophobic would just slip through that
@@industrialdonut7681 it's caused by both. Hydrophobic materials don't magically decrease interaction with liquids to zero, they only repel the water so that it can move alongside them with low friction. When you're falling at terminal velocity onto water your main problem is the inertia of water, which really doesn't want to move out of your way, as it first needs to move the water around it to even start accelerating outwards. A person covered in a hydrophobic material would pancake onto the surface just as much as if not covered.
@@DeuxisWasTaken he says in the video it reduces the drag coefficient by a factor of 10 or something, that is the effect to do with momentum and slowing down from displacing the water. If it's that low, it's like if you could fall from space into a pool of air almost, you won't pancake from that. It is the surface tension which creates a literal hard-surface that you smack into and die on, not anywhere near as much as the drag especially if you're only talking about falling at terminal velocity through air and not like many hundreds or more meters per second.
so, say you throw a weight to break the surface tension. Would you just descend hundreds of meters in a go? Perhaps presure would smush your organs before running out of air
Every military around the globe just casually taking notes
A really similar concept already exist, is the supercavitating torpedo, in use with both the Russian and German navies.
no this has allready been attempted,although by much different means.im not sure if these are in active use currently or still in the r and d phase though.but I do know it's been tinkered with
@@paolorubenmastretta and you bring up a major point on one weakness I could see them having.cavitation.this makes a shit ton of noise,so they won't be hard to miss.im not even sure how you could make something like this silent running.and I think from a more practical war standpoint it would be better to have a slow stealth torpedo the enimy can't see coming as opposed to a fast but stupidly loud torpedo they can detect in advance and counter.and by loud,I mean in terms of sonar.and also,remember that cavitation is also destructive,so that could present issues of itself.we see this on boat props all the time.
@@richardpeterson3753 the destruction of the torpedo is not a problem given the absence of contact between it and the water, about the fact that is better a stealth torpedo I could agree with but given the fact that they can get pretty close to a surface group and given how fast they're they could be successful, after all if they produced them...
@@richardpeterson3753 i believe this concept has been used and the issue of noise isn't a concern because the torpedo travels so fast that there's nothing that can be done about it anyway.
2:51 It's always interesting to hear all the variants english speakers use when trying to pronounce the german "ei" e.g. in Leidenfrost. The funny thing is, it is not a special sound at all and regularly used in english: It's just the sound the letter "I" makes, or the word "eye".
And while we are on the topic, I very often see that people switch the "e" and "i" around, writing "ie" when they want to write "ei", but this is pronounced completely different, more like the first sound in "eagle" but with a longer emphasis. Probably why this typo is so much more noticable to native german speakers.
Thanks for attending my TED Talk.
Bet you can pronounce my name correctly. Two attaboys for you! I play chess and I like the terms Zwischenzug, Zugzwang, which I pronounce correctly.
Here the creative bee comes again for getting me thinking it further for hours
@hv a gooday why did you give it to me
I feel like I've seen his videos with hydrophobic so many times now
Very high speed boats have used that concept for around a century now. Hydrofoils and (maybe more appropriate) hulls with large steps or notches to create air cavities that cut drag.
The Action Lab: Making war tactics a little less complicated.
I feel like this has incredible potential, not just for weaponry, but even underwater vehicles. Imagine being able to take advantage of the buoyancy of water's density while cutting through it like a airplane through atmosphere.
Submarines?
Thank You for your simple but Great presentation...Well Done!
It seems like it would make a lot of sense to coat actual torpedoes, submarines and even high-performance boats in a super-hydrophobic coating then.
If we can manage to produce a coating that is cheap enough and robust enough to last a while it might conceivably even be worth the added maintenance and cost for the speed and fuel-savings on large transport ships.
Hydrophobic materials aren't rare these days, but durability is probably an problem for many applications.
I think there is still a lot of potential in material sciences for these sorts of coatings - not just hydrophobic, but also ones that reduce air resistance.
Imagine being in a submarine. You fire one of the new, super-hydrophobic torpedoes and it just falls to the ocean floor
ALSO USING PIEZO TRANSDUCERS YOU CAN REDUCE FRICTION BY TUNING THE FREQUENCY TO THE DRAG OF WATER/AIR TO REDUCE DRAG.
@@esecallum drag is not oscillating force
@@shashanka9821
its been already. have you noticed how you mobile phone slides very easily when its VIBRATING? same principle
@@Morningstar_37 That would be pretty funny, but sadly I don't think we can overcome the force of gravity (and thus buoyancy) with a simple coating. Things would get quite interesting if that were possible :)
We will need that when we find those underwater alien bases.
Just pictured someone 20 years from now saying "yeah, I saw an action lab video that inspired me to make these underwater nukes"
i wish the parts where you explain with your hands was done instead on a whiteboard
I'm more of a visual and kinetic learner. So for me, the whiteboard would be a bit confusing. But I get where you're coming from.
Try ASAP science
He does in some videos where it's too complicated to explain with words. Like semiconductors and magnetism.
Video Idea: make the inside of a cup hydrophobic…when filled with water will the water just levitate(dye the water for better visuals).
This sounds like an amazing idea
Neat idea! I wonder how tall the cup has to be for the water pressure to overcome it
It wont levitate, but chances are that it will take much longer than normal to "settle down"
The military torpedoes should be coated with that.
Anyone ever notice that because of the line created by his microphone cable on his shirt, it sorta looks like hes wearing a scrub top if you look too quickly
Kinda lol
that’s the first thing i thought is “why he wearing scrubs he a doc now?”
2021: Hydrophobic Projectiles Slice through Water with no Drag
2069: Full tutorial on how to build a Nuke
Makes me imagine a future where we travel through water as easily as through air
We still float, also water pressure is another factor, it works for this but once you get deeper and deeper there is still a ton of weight pressing in on you
So this would be super useful for underwater torpedoes.
see: VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo
The downside is that it'll sink faster
I would like to see you have a channel with longer videos great content!
4:29 isn't that bubble collapsing into itself a good example of cavitation?
I don't think so - air is a compressible fluid, so a bubble merely changing size isn't proof of cavitation. A good example would start with no air at all, producing a bubble of water vapour due to reduced pressure which then collapses back into water once the pressure rises again.
I Will Say One Thing
I Want Him As My Science Professor 👨🏻🔬👨🔬👨🔬
I went to a school to learn traditional wooden boat building, and one of the dudes there was a retired naval engineer who had spent years working on a system to have subs and torpedos excrete a goo on their surface similar to that used by dolphins, in order to go faster with same power output, or go similar speed but with less fuel used, so increased range. They went with dolphin mimicking goo vs. Fish mimmicking goo, because it was less susceptible to being rubbed off, if i remember correctly. The system worked, but the goo excreting system took up as much payload capacity as the fuel saved, so it wasn't practical for the intended use.
ActionLab: "So awesome, a way to make a hydrophobic torpedo...!!!"
DoD : "...and this is why we hire civilians to make our weapons...!"
If the toro leaves an air bubble behind the blades cant work thus not moving the torpedo making it useless
@@mathew0172 Maybe have the blades upfront? Or make a jet torp?
@@nerobernardino88 can't mess with the front cuz the front creates the flow that lets the torpedo move basically picture dropping a cube and dropping a sphere into water the sphere should fall faster cuz the water doesn't get caught on the sphere
@@nerobernardino88 Blades at the front would be useless thats why they are on the back and i dont know how well a jet engine would work underwater, those used for the icbm on subs only need to go for a few meters before exiting water in case thats what you were thinking
@@mathew0172 how bout making jus enough of the torp hydrophobic that the "bubble" tapers right in front of the guide fins an propeller? 🤔
This technique has been used in the military for a while.
Thought so. As if they didn't already found out this significant application.
I'm guessing those ufo videos with the "tic tacs" are hydrophobic drones with bitchin sweet propulsion.
I want to know all their secrets...
@@jetjazz05 this really makes me think wether the ufo’s are aliens or just high tech devices like nuclear scram jet and this stuff
so do you think there are hydrophobic vessels that some submarines have reported going very fast past them?
The beginning of this video seems to explain how my method of adding more sugar to my coffee than is needed, in order to add more coffee later without adding more sugar actually works.
Wait, so, if I try to swim when I am all covered with hydrophobic dust , I'll just sink? Or will I swim faster than ever? This is so confusing
I would assume you would still be buoyant enough to float, so you might be able to swim, idk though
That's actually a very good question.
Bouyancy is the resistance of water pushing up on you.
By being hydrophobic, the water pushing up would instead slip around you, causing you to sink quickly (like the ball in the video).
you would sink, because it would be like you were jumping into nothing
@@giga4052 that means, if you work in a hydrophobic dust factory, don't go for a swim right after your shift. o_o
This is fascinating.
I’m now curious what it would be like to pour water into a bucket that is super hydrophobic.
Would the water actually be “in the bucket”? Or would it have air around it
I learn so much from every video you make. I wonder if hydrophobic coatings are legal in competitive swimming (maybe leaving the palms and bottom of feet uncoated)?
It is illegal
When the swimmer gets out of the pool you can easily notice
5:39 That was actually a cool ass summary statement/conclusion at the end. I really appreciate that. Sounded very scientifically reminiscent of all the research papers I’ve read and written. The ‘So What’. I subscribed.
This reminds me of something I saw awhile back. They will pump air under an ocean going vessel and the air will reduce the drag by something like 9%.
It has a side-effect of sinking more.
If you spray the whole underside of your boat with hydrophobic material, would it just slip into water or will it float?
How practical would it be to make a small boat hydrophobic? I'd be interested to see how much that affects drag and increases relative velocity
Hydrophobic paint.
or Carnaúba wax.
Aliens have perfected Every experiment in every of your videos.
5:15 no wonder I was getting slight deja vu watching this, i remember that article XD
I wonder if this can be applied to bullets? Bullets are known to lose all velocity once fired into water. Will a hydrophobic coated bullet be able to maintain its effect underwater?
I don't think the loss of velocity is due to the frictional drag but to pushing the water out of the way.
@@petergerdes1094 It's both. I believe this actually leads to faster bullets losing speed quicker underwater despite having more kinetic energy. But there are some prototype bullet designs that use the same supercavitation everyone is talking about in the comments with torpedo designs, and they're very interesting to watch. Look up DSG Cav-X Bullets.
Woodleigh makes hypercavitating hydrostatically stabilized bullets that use a contoured nose to push material out away from the bullet. They are used in big game hunting.
Seen tens to hundreds of your videos, absolutely love these
So hydrophobic submarine will run faster than normal?
just make sure the steering isn't hydrophobic!
They would make a lot of noise.
I don't think it would be useful for naval submarines. See those pockets of "air" following the ball on its descent? Those are water cavitations and they make noise when they implode, and bigger cavitations make louder noises. An enemy boat will be able to hear them. Besides that, moving fast in a naval submarine is only useful if it's peacetime, in territorial waters, in an emergency, or (by some miracle) if can be done quietly. It would still be fun to try some thing like it on a civilian sub.
Imagine a hydrophobic nuke torpedo
You should have added the comparison when the ball goes through empty cylinder v/s when it is hydrophobic in water containing cylinder...
That'd had been better bro..👍
@Craig Sheehan It would show how close the hydrophobic ball falling through water gets to the speed of the same ball falling through only air.
Drop a hydrophobic covered camera to the deepest part of the ocean
Omg
Surrounding an object with a pocket of air traveling through a liquid reduces drag, kind of like the idea of surrounding a spaceship with negative energy to warp space both in front of and behind the craft would allow you to theoretically move fast with space. Alcubierre Drive.
50 years later: Hey guys today we will be making a atomic bomb the size of the sun.
*The government wants to know your location*
NAH, let 'em wonder!😂😂
There's a Norwegian company making supercavitating ammunition that does basically this exact thing. Instead of slowing to a halt after a meter or two, supercavitating rounds can travel up to 15m before stopping. For a SEAL or something fighting underwater, that literally makes them bulletproof. They could shoot at enemy guards on land with impunity, while being protected from all return fire due to the water. Assuming the guards even knew where the shots were coming from! You see a guy's head explode, the last place most people start looking is down. You'd be thinking there's a sniper up on a perch somewhere.
I’ve had this idea that I want you to try,
Can you take a one way mirror and point it toward a normal mirror and then look through the one way mirror to see if your able to see the infinite loop? Doing this you shouldn’t have your own head interfering like it does when you look in between two normal mirrors
The number of images would not be infinite because after every reflection the image formed would be a little bit dimmer because light would lose energy after every reflection Our standard mirrors reflect about 98 something percent light 2 percent is absorbed so the image formed after every reflection is 2 percent dimmer so after enough reflections there will be no image if you have a mirror which reflects 100 percent light even then infinite images aren't possible Because suppose you have two mirrors apart at a distance of 300,000 m then light would take one seconds to travel to the mirror on the opposite end so its one reflection per second so it would take *INFINITE* amount of *time* to make infinite images ................
@@dishant8126 yeah, I’d still like to see it though. I think it’d be pretty neat
Test a toy boat covered in that stuff- see how much faster it gets
Well before it was hydrophobic the ball fell about a second but it was nearly instant when it was hydrophobic
Yes, a nice RC boat with a propeller so you can see how much faster you can make it. I'm willing to bet it'd gain a good 60 to 80 percent speed...