I started following you I think 9 years ago. My daughter was 5 years old. I always talked to her about physics, math, astronomy, science, stars, experiments. and thanks to your experiments I spent wonderful days with her "playing science". Today she is 14 years old, she enrolled in a school oriented to science-math and says she wants to be a physics teacher. THANK YOU (from Italy) !
That's fantastic! - i don't know how I've never seen the variant with the balloon - at first glance it feels like it should be wimpier, but it conforms to the lip of the vessel so much better! wonderfully counterintuitive.
One of the benefits of the metric system is that everything is easy to calculate. One atmosphere is 10 metres of water, or (approx.) 100 kPa. You don't then have to adjust everything to the length of the monarch's forearm.
IDK why the one with multiple holes surprised me, the principle is the same! Excellent demonstration. I was lucky enuf to have many great science teachers in school, and love that RUclips has let me add you to my list of favorite teachers. Thank you for sharing all your cool work.
Awesome video, congratulations! A little question: if one places the lid while the whole container is submerged, as to not allow any air to enter, would the results be different? Would the pressure inside be greater or smaller?
Trying to place the lid on while the whole containers submerged does not work, if you hold the lid in place and start lifting the container out of the water, then it does.
We love your channel and we are enjoying your enjoyment of sharing your knowledge and experiments with us! One thing that i'd always wanted to get a better understanding of is oscillations and frequencies. Do you have Videos and ideas on that? I was always fascinated on how shaking the pool could create circular waves that shot one or two drops way high in the sky. Why is that? How is that? What can we do with that?
I have a several videos take a look at visualizing frequency patters, may may want to try these two ruclips.net/video/eskZ3OORfYM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/YeI-jd5vqNw/видео.html
Excellent! And did you know when you do this with milk and it go's wrong, your wife comes in yelling; WTF! and you get to wash the kitchen, the hallway, the dog than change the bed and your clothes...and have to go buy milk again
7:00 correction "...top would reduce to absolute zero" Absolute zero refers to the theoretical lowest limit of temperature, not pressure. More simply you could say the pressure at the top would reduce to zero (vacuum) or include the nuance of the vapor pressure of water.
Thanks Nathan, that should have been worded better, what I intended to say is that the absolute pressure is zero. two errors on that page, I may have to retire and leave making videos to a younger crowd.
@@YeanyScience nonsense, there are plenty of well established science channels that make plenty of mistakes. You still have much to offer the world. 😊
I think I've been saying that for the last five years or so but still love the science as much as ever. I just find myself doing it at a slower pace. I still have a long list of things I want to try and show. I guess as long as friends keep tuning in I'll continue putting stuff out and try to get it right.
anyway, I am still not sure what keeps the lid on, because lid does not "feel" the pressure on the top of the container, but that on the bottom, which is bigger by hydrostatic pressure. From the video it seems, that somehow the pressure on the top always drops by such a value, that the forces on the lid are balanced. But what is the mechanism, that causes this? It surely has to do something with the surface tension, but I am still unable to wrap my head around it, can someone help?
Hey Bruce, amazing video! Will have to try this at work. At 6:53 it says 33 feet equals 4.3 meter and I don't think that's right, hope that helps, have a good one.
There are some problems with the explanation that I was not satisfied with and decided to revise this version with the problems deleted and have now reposted it. I will also continue to explore this demonstration with additional variations to try and improve my explanation of it. Sorry for inconvenience.
I'm out of my league here, but FWIW I'm intuitively skeptical of your explanation of the role of cohesion at 4:00. It seems like, cohesion would affect the local seal between the water and the bottom plate, granted. But I don't think that's the primary point you're making. The point you're making, as I read it, is that in order for the experiment to succeed the contents must (overall) resist changes in volume. And you introduce the granular substance as an example that fails to resist changes in volume. But the granules are solid -- experiencing even better cohesion than water! You make it sound like the free movement of the granules is the culprit. But they're maintaining constant volume, so why should it matter how they move? When the column expands, the granules don't expand with it. The _air_ in between them expands. For example, if you re-ran the granular demo but pumped out the air inside, and provided just a few ounces of water to help seal the contact with the lid, you might get a different result. That's what I posit anyway. Short of adding a vacuum pump to the experiment, it might be possible to demonstrate with an experimental variant featuring a mixture of water and granular solids; gradually reduce the water level to find the minimum amount that can support the column. You may always need some water to maintain the seal at the contact of the card, but my wager is that for any given proportion of water and air, adding granular solid will improve the result of the experiment, so long as the granular solid is displacing the air, not the water. I imagine the relevant factors would be the density of the granular substance and the displacement. The best granular candidate would have relatively low material density (not exert much force due to gravity) but high displacement (not leave much air). Love your content btw =)
I'm always happy to listen to comments and questions regarding my videos, as it is a learning experience for me. In this case I believe I have it correct. The first point I'd stress is that there must be a pressure drop at the top that is due to the weight of the material inside. Think of the cohesiveness of the water causing it to act somewhat like a solid piston, (both being incompressible) the piston with a good enough seal would not allow air to pass around it, that piston would not fall out due to the reduced pressure between the top of the piston and the inside top of the container. The reduction is caused by the weight pulling it down and the higher air pressure underneath supporting it. Same behavior as trying to pull a stoppered syringe apart. The must be a pressure difference from top of the water column (or piston) to the bottom otherwise they fall, just as the sand did. The loose sand or material as you suggested is unable to do this since it allows the movement of air throughout the container, as it does so, the tiny amount of air inside remains at the same pressure throughout the container which means it is the same as pressure as outside the container so the experiment fails. I could easily fill the container with sand, place a balloon on the bottom, reduce the pressure inside by attaching a vacuum pump on it and it would stay together but that is missing the point of the whole experiment. You've inspired me to run some more tests, along with some questions that others have posed. Hope to prove myself and take farther, but if not then that's okay too. Planning to do another video on what I find. thanks for your comment
@YeanyScience Thank you for the articulate reply! Your explanation above makes sense to me, and in my defense I think it's also consistent with the expectations I described. I think my confusion arose from semantic ambiguity. I agree the air infiltrating the granular substance must play a critical role in the outcome of the experiment. IIRC that part wasn't spelled out explicitly in the original description in the video, and that's why it was unclear to me if the infiltrating air was accounted for in the model, or unaccounted. I'm glad the community feedback gives you some inspiration to further experiments and illustrations! As long as you're in that mindset, here's another train of thought to explore: To my mind, there appears to be a strong parallel between the air infiltrating the granular substance, and the air at the top of the column of water -- the main difference being, the ratio of air in the column of water is self-evident, whereas the air in the granular mass is cryptic and the ratio of solid to air is hard to estimate. That might make it an interesting subject for a visualization.
I found it works very nicely if I put the granular substance inside a balloon, it kind of illustrates what I mentioned in my reply and I'll look at the sand water mix. We'll see how it comes out. Thanks again for your questions, it certainly makes me work a little harder to justify my theory.
I'm not going to try and explain the behavior of matter in this demonstration according to Einstein's theory regarding the warping of space time. For less knowledgeable viewers I'm referring to gravity because it describes the resulting interaction between two masses. If NASA still refers it to the behavior of gravity as a "force" then for simplicity sake, I will also.
@@YeanyScience The Flat Earther found a real science channel. Just do what you do best Bruce and these clowns can continue to fail science over and over again.
In a topsy turvy world, it's so nice to share this wholesome channel with my family. Cheers Bruce Yeany
All kids need science teachers like you Bruce, learning should be fun. Thank you for continuing to entertain us :😀
I started following you I think 9 years ago. My daughter was 5 years old.
I always talked to her about physics, math, astronomy, science, stars, experiments.
and thanks to your experiments I spent wonderful days with her "playing science".
Today she is 14 years old, she enrolled in a school oriented to science-math and says she wants to be a physics teacher.
THANK YOU (from Italy) !
Bruce is a Teacher. That is what good teachers do. They inspire people.
Bruce is such a wonderful gem on this platform
That's fantastic! - i don't know how I've never seen the variant with the balloon - at first glance it feels like it should be wimpier, but it conforms to the lip of the vessel so much better! wonderfully counterintuitive.
Your are great, maybe the greatest! Thank you for your love ans smile!!!
I loved the bloopers at the end! 💦
Absolutely spectacular demonstrations. I wish I'd been shown things like this when I was at school, but better late than never!
I used to do this with my kids at bath time. I even used a plastic strainer with small holes, and water would not come out. The kids loved it.
One of the benefits of the metric system is that everything is easy to calculate. One atmosphere is 10 metres of water, or (approx.) 100 kPa. You don't then have to adjust everything to the length of the monarch's forearm.
IDK why the one with multiple holes surprised me, the principle is the same! Excellent demonstration.
I was lucky enuf to have many great science teachers in school, and love that RUclips has let me add you to my list of favorite teachers. Thank you for sharing all your cool work.
thank you
Super, good to see more of this! I enjoyed the explanation showing the limits of the effect. Nice bloopers.
Glad you enjoyed it, my videos always are a work in progress, there could have been a whole long video of just the mistakes
I love how effortlessly the lid/stopper comes off after each demonstration
Great job Bruce 👍👍
Fantastic video. Very interesting and informative. Thanks so much 🙏 💓 😊
Thank you for doing what you do!
Great stuff
Always a good and wholesome video from this channel 😘👌
Thank you Bruce!
Love your content, thank you for sharing with the world. Bet you were fun to hang around with as a kid. Take care
Haven't seen that one. Interesting!
Детям в Африке очень понравится видео 😁
Great video, you always have good demonstrations. Minor not, your conversion of 33 feet is out, it is close to 10 meters instead of 4 meters.
Awesome video, congratulations! A little question: if one places the lid while the whole container is submerged, as to not allow any air to enter, would the results be different? Would the pressure inside be greater or smaller?
Trying to place the lid on while the whole containers submerged does not work, if you hold the lid in place and start lifting the container out of the water, then it does.
We love your channel and we are enjoying your enjoyment of sharing your knowledge and experiments with us!
One thing that i'd always wanted to get a better understanding of is oscillations and frequencies. Do you have Videos and ideas on that? I was always fascinated on how shaking the pool could create circular waves that shot one or two drops way high in the sky. Why is that? How is that? What can we do with that?
I have a several videos take a look at visualizing frequency patters, may may want to try these two
ruclips.net/video/eskZ3OORfYM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/YeI-jd5vqNw/видео.html
Excellent! And did you know when you do this with milk and it go's wrong, your wife comes in yelling; WTF! and you get to wash the kitchen, the hallway, the dog than change the bed and your clothes...and have to go buy milk again
Neato
If the fluid has no cohesion, then it would not work? So, if the fluid is say gasoline instead of water, what will happen?
I have not tried it, in the past we have tried cooking oil, alcohol, dish soap, soapy water, salt water, carbonated water and they all worked.
7:00 correction
"...top would reduce to absolute zero"
Absolute zero refers to the theoretical lowest limit of temperature, not pressure.
More simply you could say the pressure at the top would reduce to zero (vacuum) or include the nuance of the vapor pressure of water.
Thanks Nathan, that should have been worded better, what I intended to say is that the absolute pressure is zero. two errors on that page, I may have to retire and leave making videos to a younger crowd.
@@YeanyScience nonsense, there are plenty of well established science channels that make plenty of mistakes. You still have much to offer the world. 😊
I think I've been saying that for the last five years or so but still love the science as much as ever. I just find myself doing it at a slower pace. I still have a long list of things I want to try and show. I guess as long as friends keep tuning in I'll continue putting stuff out and try to get it right.
@@YeanyScience Exactly! That's the attitude we need :)
anyway, I am still not sure what keeps the lid on, because lid does not "feel" the pressure on the top of the container, but that on the bottom, which is bigger by hydrostatic pressure.
From the video it seems, that somehow the pressure on the top always drops by such a value, that the forces on the lid are balanced. But what is the mechanism, that causes this? It surely has to do something with the surface tension, but I am still unable to wrap my head around it, can someone help?
Hey Bruce, amazing video! Will have to try this at work. At 6:53 it says 33 feet equals 4.3 meter and I don't think that's right, hope that helps, have a good one.
6:64 - It should be 10m, not 4m.
Thanks Guys, I must be getting old, easy mistake and I missed it.
Actually @6:54 rather than 6:64 ;-)
My sincere condolences to everybody living in a country with customary or imperial units.
At 33ft it would already have a significant vacuum; rather the water would begin to boil at room temp, so the top few inches would be steam.
🌟🌷🌟
Why is this unlisted
There are some problems with the explanation that I was not satisfied with and decided to revise this version with the problems deleted and have now reposted it. I will also continue to explore this demonstration with additional variations to try and improve my explanation of it. Sorry for inconvenience.
I'm out of my league here, but FWIW I'm intuitively skeptical of your explanation of the role of cohesion at 4:00.
It seems like, cohesion would affect the local seal between the water and the bottom plate, granted.
But I don't think that's the primary point you're making.
The point you're making, as I read it, is that in order for the experiment to succeed the contents must (overall) resist changes in volume.
And you introduce the granular substance as an example that fails to resist changes in volume.
But the granules are solid -- experiencing even better cohesion than water!
You make it sound like the free movement of the granules is the culprit. But they're maintaining constant volume, so why should it matter how they move?
When the column expands, the granules don't expand with it. The _air_ in between them expands.
For example, if you re-ran the granular demo but pumped out the air inside, and provided just a few ounces of water to help seal the contact with the lid, you might get a different result.
That's what I posit anyway.
Short of adding a vacuum pump to the experiment, it might be possible to demonstrate with an experimental variant featuring a mixture of water and granular solids; gradually reduce the water level to find the minimum amount that can support the column. You may always need some water to maintain the seal at the contact of the card, but my wager is that for any given proportion of water and air, adding granular solid will improve the result of the experiment, so long as the granular solid is displacing the air, not the water.
I imagine the relevant factors would be the density of the granular substance and the displacement. The best granular candidate would have relatively low material density (not exert much force due to gravity) but high displacement (not leave much air).
Love your content btw =)
I'm always happy to listen to comments and questions regarding my videos, as it is a learning experience for me. In this case I believe I have it correct. The first point I'd stress is that there must be a pressure drop at the top that is due to the weight of the material inside. Think of the cohesiveness of the water causing it to act somewhat like a solid piston, (both being incompressible) the piston with a good enough seal would not allow air to pass around it, that piston would not fall out due to the reduced pressure between the top of the piston and the inside top of the container. The reduction is caused by the weight pulling it down and the higher air pressure underneath supporting it. Same behavior as trying to pull a stoppered syringe apart. The must be a pressure difference from top of the water column (or piston) to the bottom otherwise they fall, just as the sand did. The loose sand or material as you suggested is unable to do this since it allows the movement of air throughout the container, as it does so, the tiny amount of air inside remains at the same pressure throughout the container which means it is the same as pressure as outside the container so the experiment fails. I could easily fill the container with sand, place a balloon on the bottom, reduce the pressure inside by attaching a vacuum pump on it and it would stay together but that is missing the point of the whole experiment. You've inspired me to run some more tests, along with some questions that others have posed. Hope to prove myself and take farther, but if not then that's okay too. Planning to do another video on what I find. thanks for your comment
@YeanyScience Thank you for the articulate reply!
Your explanation above makes sense to me, and in my defense I think it's also consistent with the expectations I described.
I think my confusion arose from semantic ambiguity. I agree the air infiltrating the granular substance must play a critical role in the outcome of the experiment. IIRC that part wasn't spelled out explicitly in the original description in the video, and that's why it was unclear to me if the infiltrating air was accounted for in the model, or unaccounted.
I'm glad the community feedback gives you some inspiration to further experiments and illustrations! As long as you're in that mindset, here's another train of thought to explore:
To my mind, there appears to be a strong parallel between the air infiltrating the granular substance, and the air at the top of the column of water -- the main difference being, the ratio of air in the column of water is self-evident, whereas the air in the granular mass is cryptic and the ratio of solid to air is hard to estimate. That might make it an interesting subject for a visualization.
I found it works very nicely if I put the granular substance inside a balloon, it kind of illustrates what I mentioned in my reply and I'll look at the sand water mix. We'll see how it comes out. Thanks again for your questions, it certainly makes me work a little harder to justify my theory.
Do not watch this yet if you have to pee.
Gravity is not a force why do you keep saying this.
Yes it is, are you trying to rewrite science here, nothing he said was incorrect.
I'm not going to try and explain the behavior of matter in this demonstration according to Einstein's theory regarding the warping of space time. For less knowledgeable viewers I'm referring to gravity because it describes the resulting interaction between two masses. If NASA still refers it to the behavior of gravity as a "force" then for simplicity sake, I will also.
lol. a troll within the first 20 comments
@@YeanyScience The Flat Earther found a real science channel. Just do what you do best Bruce and these clowns can continue to fail science over and over again.
@@AlphaPhoenixChannel truth is not a troll dangerous minded idiot