This Rod Fountain Finally Proves Me Right
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2021
- Get a whole year of Curiosity Stream for just $14.99: curiositystream.com/stevemould
This is the latest rebuttal in a long line of rebuttals about the Chain Fountain (The Mould Effect)! Here's the playlist of past videos:
• Chain fountain playlist
You can also discuss this video on REDDIT: stvmld.com/-h48kn2h
Subscribe to ElectroBOOM here:
/ electroboom
You can buy my books here:
stevemould.com/books
You can support me on Patreon here:
/ stevemould
just like these amazing people:
Glenn Watson
Peter Turner
Joël van der Loo
Matthew Cocke
Mark Brouwer
Deneb
Twitter: / moulds
Instagram: / stevemouldscience
Facebook: / stevemouldscience
Buy nerdy maths things: mathsgear.co.uk 
Наука
Thanks for all the suggestions that went into this video! What do you think? Convincing?
You can also discuss this video on REDDIT: stvmld.com/n26_w4an
And can I just point out this brilliant video that came out the day before this one and has a lot in common: ruclips.net/video/I31GfljDEWA/видео.html
The sponsor is Curiosity Stream: Get a whole year for just $14.99 curiositystream.com/stevemould
Have to watch the video to know
There is another thing to consider may be,
That the chain colecting cylinder
From 6th min the left one vedio collects the chain at one stop only making the radius of a chain collecting at a given time increasing
Where as in another case the right case the chain is collecting overall the cylinder so, the radius of chain collecting at a given time is constant
And so, at left vedio case peak may constant and in right case peak is reciding .
Never any doubt (after the last one and a good think)
Nice new collection of experiments, though!
If this is not convincing, nothing will be.
The inertia from the rising chain is what’s doing it. You are tossing the links in the air. There is clearly a minimum velocity required for enough energy to clear the rim. I first thought it was the internal levering of the strand of chain at first also.
i think you neglect the centrifugal force playing in the moving loops (because there are smaller ones before the top one), whipping the chain around.
The chain has a substantial speed in the loops.
This proves what YT needs is more adversarial collaborations. Great work! I was convinced by your last video but now I’m even more convinced.
It has been a WW3.
Okay but explain this… ruclips.net/video/gGtO2zPQkec/видео.html
2
This is what science used to be and I'm very much here for it. It's like watching Einstein debate Bohr.
Friendly science battles! We all win with the knowledge gained!
19:26 makes me believe you are absolutely right! 😄 ok let me go do my own electrical analysis and see what I come with... great explanations as usual!
cant wait for your video
Go go go! (((:
Not gonna lie, I think he got you on this one. I do beliieve your hypothesis does contribute in the stability of the fountain tho.
I wonder how long this is going to be.
@@good_guy_SG As I said: Mehdi vs Mould live from ISS
I mean these videos are literally a good lesson in why peer review is an important part of turning experimentation into knowledge
this is not even remotely how peer review works
@@samb443 But it is how competition works. Capitalism, baby!
Except for when the peers are corrupt with ideology
@@AR15andGOD That's why anything significant is peer reviewed by many.
Why would you say ''I mean''?
This is a great demonstration of why disagreements are good. Sure, one side is wrong, but it drives the other side to go into far greater detail about things and in the end you're left with a much better understanding of the problem. It's beneficial for everyone.
after watching this series, I have serious doubts in my critical thinking skills. I can be convinced of anything with a good enough orator.
Same here! I’m glad those videos expose my critical judgment that way, cause I’ll get stronger from here!
Nice pfp
Maybe they just both present compelling arguments? No need to doubt yourself. They're both giving evidence for their assertions and they're good arguments
If true that's an incredibly valuable insight for your own life, congrats! :)
I think Medhi's first video very legitimately pointed out real flaws in the experimental evidence Steve provided. The experiments really got refined a lot over these videos, but unfortunately for Medhi, the experiments still agree with Steve.
But it was too easy to go from "experiments were flawed" to "theory was flawed".
It's clear to me that chains are actually just sleeping snakes, and when they start falling they panic and arch up
This is the right answer
Claim your 10,000 cents my guy, you've made it
"It's clear to me that" is the best way to start the results section of a scientific paper.
yes
Yeah, obviously.
This is such an epic nerd feud. I hope it never ends.
Basically how AI got so good. Science is all about blind agreement now and that will get us nowhere. Just like how the Chinese closed themselves off and ended up being owned later by a civilization that came up with new ways of doing things
If you hope it never ends, then you can't be very invested in the science of it - and that means you're not a nerd!
@@aceman0000099 you mean when they die? Obviously the feud has to end eventually.
And I’m certainly not a nerd. You are correct.
@@darrenstettner5381 besides, it's over in case you didn't know
who needs stupid logan paul boxing matches when you can have scientific 200iq debates
To measure weight, you don't need a scale. You just need a spring holding the chain container. Then measure the displacement of the spring. That gives you a visual readout that works well with filming.
I know I'm late to this, but I was , kinda thinking the same thing, a spring, or a really precise analog scale....film it in slo-mo and grab the measurements as they happen....maybe.
The spring will not necessarily always be in equilibrium, though and you can only 'read off' the weight from the displacement of the spring if you assume that the two forces balance ie the system is in equilibrium. It will take some time for the change in force to propagate through the spring (should be of order the length of the spring divided by the speed of sound of the material) and then the spring will start to oscillate (since the upward force now exceeds the downward force as the suspended length of chain shrinks) and then damp over time to a new equilibrium.
So for this type of measurement to work, you need a spring whose characteristic damped period is much much smaller than the time scale on which we want to measure changes in the remaining weight of chain. This implies that we need a very large spring stiffness since the period is inversely related to the stiffness (usually denoted 'k'). But holding all else equal, as you increase the spring stiffness, you make the displacement of the spring from its relaxed length in equilibrium while holding the chain smaller and smaller, meaning we have to measure displacements more and more precisely to get an accurate measurement of the weight.
Let's do some order of magnitude calculations. Steve's scales show the chain's full mass is about 2kg. If we want to get a spring that reaches equilibrium on a time scale of 1/1000s like Steve's force gauge, then the the period of the undamped spring better not be bigger than 1/1000s, otherwise the spring will not have time to do even 1 complete oscillation before if has to be back in equilibrium. Therefore, we need a spring of stiffness at least 80,000 N/m. And practically, it will need to be much stiffer because ideally you want the spring to be able to complete many periods, so that it can settle to equilibrium, before you take the next measurement. And for a spring of stiffness 80,000N/m, the displacement from the relaxed length due to the 2kg chain when it is just hanging motionless in the pot will be.... about 0.25mm. The *largest* displacement that we will see in the whole experiment is a quarter of a millimeter. As the chain falls and the suspended weight changes by, say, 100g then that corresponds to a change in the equilibrium displacement of the spring of about 12 microns. To get an accurate reading from this setup, you would need to be able to measure the displacement of the spring with a precision of at least 1 micron, probably less, and that's quite difficult to do.
@@Anytus2007 remember that even the electronic scale functions using mechanical means, it only features electronics to display the number. So you could perhaps connect the wires to an oscilloscope rather than a terrible LCD display to get the most precise reading, a bit like a seismograph. But to have an oscilloscope and know how to rewire it, well youd have to be some sort of electrical engineer! ... I wonder what Mehdi's job might be 🤔
The problem is you need a point of reference, meaning the same thing happening, but without the kickback force, which is pretty much impossible due to the chaotic nature of the chain leaving
@@aceman0000099 time for alphaphoenix to bring in his oscilloscope?
The real Mould effect was the adversarial collaborations we made along the way.
The real adversarial feeling we made along the way, was Mould
@@DarrenDignam The Russians were doing this long before Mould.
nothing wraps up a good adversarial collaboration quite like the moral behind it all
The real The Russians were doing this long before Mould. is the Real adversarial feelings we made along the way, was Mould we made along the way
I have a real mold effect around the bathtub. 😆
Mehdi is right about one thing: Steve's blue eyes and soothing voice are mesmerizing.
19:31
Yup. He could stop a prison rape just by talking.
Yes, I think it all makes sense now. O.O
Don't forget the unibrow
And Medhi's shocking personality is riveting
Former industrial rope guy here. Watching this series reminds me of observations made at a film set that involved passing thick rubber coated power cables down a cliff. Care had to be exercised once a certain amount of cable was payed out as it would quickly become, and I’m being extremely tame in my description: “self lowering”.
This kind of reactionary videos; polite and honest are awesome. There should be more poeple like you both in the world!
Yeah, not the priestly arrogance of mainstream science. All we know is that we know nothing. Through Socratic argument (which got Socrates killed) can we discover truth.
Assuming both parties are being genuine, any scientific discussion should be pretty easy to keep civil. It's not about opinions or ideals about how things ought to be, it's about observations and understanding how and why things are.
@@generalcodsworth4417 Its all about that assumption and the scientific part. Guess I watch to much social media crap ;)
This all was the purest definition of “I respectfully disagree, …” Except, in Mehdi’s case it’s “I respectfully disagree, despite your mesmerizing blue eyes and soothing voice…”
But he has more followers!
😶 u a kid?
@@PerErikKarlsson follower count is not relevant to anything other then adcents payout.
@@jaydunbar7538 guess you haven't seen Electrobooms first video on the chain fountain.
@@jaydunbar7538 Medhi's joked about it.
You could easily align the footage with a USB force gauge by tapping the top of the breaker the chain is in before doing the fountain. Just align the spike in the graph record with the tap on camera. Same theory as clapping to align the audio with the video when recording from a standalone audio source.
Very nice!
You should also tap it again at the end, because the sampling rate is going to differ from the camera's frame rate and you need two points to scale their time axes properly.
I'd be curious to see if there'd be a (small) spike in the (graph of the) reading when the loop passes over the rod in the setup shown at 15:50
Edit: watching through 16:00 at .25 speed, the loop passing over the bar appears to be when the "additional" force is applied. I also really enjoy how clearly the pronunciation of "additional" comes across as "a-dish'-nal" (vs "a-di-sho-nal", etc.)
This might not work, because the scale display operates in "cycles". You may create the spike at the end of a cycle and measure a small delay, when if the spike happened at the beginning of the cycle, you'd have a longer delay. This might be able to be overcome, but something to think about
Why not use an Analog force gage? Wouldn't that do the trick?
1:30 in slow motion I believe you can actually see this happening when it hits the longer chain link and you can visually see the chain react more aggressively because of the sudden change in overall stiffness
Amazing set of videos here!! Really loved it !! Hope this kind of healthy competitiveness keeps on going. Thanks so much for the hard work👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I love how Steve is becoming an expert and spending hundreds of hours studying pouring a chain out of a beaker.
I mean, the effect is named after him
this is what it means to science
While we were watching youtube videos, he was studying "the chain"...
@@HouseboundPerspectives they're both doing the math, just usually off screen as none of it is necessary for the videos.
@@professorfukyu744 its crazy to think that professional math people wouldnt be....doing the math
A few hundred years ago this whole debate would have been happening in writing. A joyful innovation.
On of the best commentaries
That is interesting, isn't it!
It would likely have been viewed as black magic or witchcraft and ended with the presenter being strapped in the ducking stool or rolled down hill in a spiked barrel....heretics😂
Why does this coment have the energy of a vampire who is still amazed by the internet and long distance communication in general?
You mean like 30 years ago right?
I first experienced this when I was very very young taking out Christmas decorations. We kept a long thread of red, wooden cranberries to wrap around the tree and one year I was unpacking it and WHOOSH the chain came raveling out of the bag making an arc. I must've been 6 or 7 so 2002/03. Very cool to see people talking about it. I assumed it was already studied!
Scientists and those prone to scientific investigation used to do this via articles and journals. YT is a great medium and we definitely need more of this.
Perhaps the gemiest of gems on RUclips. Steve vs Mehdi. Great followup Steve.
I love that all you guys watch as well. I'm sure it means a lot to these guys. By you guys I mean fellow creators
The individual beads on the chain would experience constant acceleration during the event from start to finish. The bead centre of gravity stays the same while the overall systems centre of gravity changes. This leads to a whipping effect.
If you hold the bottom of that chain and use a whipping motion upwards the beads would rise proportional to the energy added from the system. It would create an arch exactly the same until all the beads left the pot
I wish this doesn't stop and we have an infinite chain of proofs and disproofs
Now we need a collab between you and the thought emporium!
"I'll go into the derivation later..."
Later: "I won't go into the derivation".
Ah, yes, Proof by Deferral and Avoidance, classic
[Mehdi voice, jutting camera angles]
You didn't go into the derivation, STEVE.
If you have a million subscribers, you don't give a shit about things like that.
@@hugofontes5708 Then it's left as an exercise for the reader.
just like my college professors
Loved this series. Thanks both!
The friendly competitiveness and poking back and forth is great! Thanks for the fun videos!
Idk what is wrong with me but its like the 5th video about a metal chain falling down and somehow i get more excited with each one XD, ty for keeping my brain off of my engineering degree
It’s the joy of science!
@@minerharry nah it's probably the drama that gets things exciting for him...
Absolutely nothing wrong. The drama of the twists and turns of points and counter-points as we swirl around the solution to an interesting question is quite reasonably very exciting. A simple "metal chain falling down" may not be all that interesting, but this exploration of a curious phenomena and debate around it are far more nuanced and complex than merely watching a piece of metal get dropped : )
Is it bad that I want ElectroBOOM to find another hole in your explanation?
Not because I really care that much about whose right (I just wanna know what really going on and I don't care who finds it first), but because this playful back and forth is one of the most fun YT collabs I've seen in years.
@@HouseboundPerspectives I have a huge ass book labeled "fundamentals of physics" maybe steve can put it to good use.
@@HouseboundPerspectives didn't he go through the force diagrams in one of the previous videos
edit: ah nevermind I see what you meant
*who's
@@HouseboundPerspectives sorry, can't make sense of what you wrote in the last part, but I would take the conclusions of a computational physics program over an enraged guy with a little whiteboard to calculate extremely complicated real life physics.
Side note: 3D CGI effects for movies/animations where cloth and hair is flowing in the wind, and even mind-blowing realistic fluid dynamics like a flood rushing through a city is all generated by a computer physics engine that can develop and render a realistic outcome all on its own, and could never be achieved by an army of humans without the aid of the program. It also wouldn't be possible to achieve by a guy with a pen and whiteboard either, no matter how enraged he got.
for me that is the simple answer.
the falling part of the chain speeds up generating more chain tension than the rising part. This is implied by the fact that the chain fountain is rising because the greater tension (force) causes the chain curvature to straighten more quickly on the more stretched side, causing the curvature to move upwards against gravity.
In short - the side that is pulled more eagerly and faster straightens, which causes the curvature to shift in the opposite direction to the pulled side.
I searched up mould effect, and it shows up as it. Congradulations mr Mould
😂 I love this exploration battle, you guys have my attention/ me hooked. Waiting for the parry 🎉
This is one of the best examples of science being made, and why peer review is so important.
This has nothing to do with peer-review though. The reviewer is not conducting their own experiments. This shows though how productive healthy competition can be.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competancies. It’s true academic peer review for a scientific journal wouldn’t do a replication study, But the disputes come from reviewing each other’s work and criticizing. They are playing to more than just each other, they are also playing to an audience, an audience who grew up on myth busters and bill nye, not rigor. They demo. That’s what these videos are are, science explanation combined with visual demos that function as experiments.
The criticism of experimental technique and challenging unproven conclusions, is key to peer review. The shown visual experimentation is for an audiance who doesn’t grasp the concepts well. As the myth busters showed, visual science sells. But gussy up the videos, supplement to visual demos with a lot more rigor, and the actual criticisms lobbied back and forth are review of the of the works each put out. It’s peer review, it’s just not academic peer review.
@@DeadSpatula The reviewers have competence, but not necessarily in the same area. They just look for obvious flaws or faults.
@@muuubiee my point was that the back and forth we see here is not what is meant when scientists talk "peer review". This is related, more akin to replication.
I love this debate playing out in the open. Too many people have no clue that this is how science really happens. On the other hand, I think some in the science community could take a lesson from the spirit of friendly debate being displayed here. Too often deep acrimony develops from disagreements. We should all be focused on getting the best answer, even if it means, in the end, that we were not correct in our original hypothesis. Honest open debate with supporting experimental evidence helps science (and in turn, society), character attacks do nothing but show the real character of the one doing the attacking.
Physicists at least are way less petty/cruel than paleontologists.
@@SamAronow
What do paleontologists get up too? Surely they can bond over beating up creationists in the car park.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 Paleontology kinda incorporates both science and exploration, the latter of which brings with it things like bragging rights and dick-waving that leads to lifelong blood feuds and libelous public spats. Look up Richard Owen.
Now imagine if RUclips decided that this chain fountain issue was important to public safety so they banned Electroboom's videos, as well as anyone else's video who disagrees with the people RUclips declares the "experts" on the topic.
This is what is happening with discussions about COVID-19 and the vaccine. All discussion has to take place behind closed doors and isn't allowed to be transparent because RUclips (as well as Facebook and others) have declared themselves the arbiters of truth and have decided for us which experts we shall exclusively listen to.
@@LowJSamuel yeah, no.
I am curious if you have considered what would happen if you had a chain in which each ball got progressively larger or smaller and how the size of the ball may give additional insight?
You could use some sort of mechanical gauge.
A digital readout will always be slightly delayed, especially if it does any computation and is taking in analog signals!
You could maybe try a "digital load cell" which is a force measurement device specifically for weight, and you can get serial outputs that could at least log the data quickly enough!
I love how Steve amplified the hypnotic effect of his baby blue eyes at the end as to secure his hold over Mehdi's mind. Maximum persuasion. 😂
Yeah… we all understood it, ur not special
@@henreereeman8529 Ooh, adversarial. I see what you did there. 😛
Has the same effect on most people I think! :D
SPEECH 100
"Why didn't you mention the simulation" absolutely slayed me
Do not trust any simulation that you have not created yourself according to your own ideas.
because someone created a 100% accurate simulation of the universe on their computer to simulate the chains going brrrr, and it isn't just some random project he did in 1 hour tops
And the beautiful blue eyes 🤣
I'm sensing a Medhisturbance in the force!
@@AdrianOkay it was the way he said it, not really what he was saying... but I get you're point and agree
@@slickfast yeah i was replying to eld0r but forgot to put the tag
Man your videos are just great!
Science + humor 🎉
It's so fun watching those arguments between scientists it's like I'm back in 1800s
The essence of peer review is adversarial. My job as a reviewer of a paper for a journal is to try to find the flaws in the logic, design, analysis, conclusions, etc. I then report my evaluation. While not all reviewers are this way, I try to write my reports in a kind manner, but it can't help but come out with an adversarial tone because that's the nature of the peer review beast.
My reply: and what do you think? Just curious.
Once the chain is moving fast enough, the rigidity in the chain is your lever, and that rigidity gives the large downward section of chain the mechanical advantage to lift the portion that is at rest, up. The “lever mechanism” IS the rigidity of the chain. No “kick up” from the container needed. When the mechanical advantage is large enough to overcome the weight of chain on the “up-side” or “at-rest-side,” the fulcrum can move up. The only force needed is from the tension in the chain on the “down-moving-side.” If the container were to be “kicking up,” the chain could start moving on its own. (Think of the rigidity in the chain like a bent 2x4 that is flinging the chain up from the fulcrum… the place where the chain is bent to some critical point (the fulcrum) seems to “spring up” the upward-moving-side because it is already moving upwards, and it is a shorter length, and is therefore lighter in mass relative to the downward-moving-chain.)
@Jack @Steve Mould The chain doesn't spring up on its own because there's no energy change in the system at that point. The energy ultimately comes from the falling chain (conversion from potential to kinetic energy), but the dynamics of it transfers to the just rising link in a non-intuitive manner. This becomes a limit to the speed of the chain and the height of the fountain when the force pulling down balances the resisting force of the rising chain. The reason for the kick up is the pull down which is converting potential energy to kinetic energy. Note that the 'fountain' effect increases from nothing as the speed of the chain ramps up. The speed of the chain will create a proportionate jerk on the end of the piece of chain entering the rising portion. Because of momentum on the entire link, it tends to stay stationary which means the link 'sees' the pull on one end as tending to rotate the link, meaning the other end has to push downward. That downward push then pushes the entire link up. That push up is proportionate to the change in momentum from zero to the speed of the pull up by the chain, and is added to the speed already set as an acceleration. As the speed increases the fountain rises to a limit because there is added energy.
I think you're doing it the right way. Some people can take constructive criticism, and others cannot.
@@lagautmd Spot on.
@@lagautmd if there was no change in energy at the fulcrum, it could not rise. the fountain effect begins as soon as part of the chain is bent to its maximum. The downward force increases as the chain moves faster. The “downward-moving-length” is longer and heavier than the “upward-moving-length.” The point of the chain that is bent to maximum is the fulcrum and the chain links are like a teeter-totters. “Non-rigid teeter totters” ….. which can load like a spring. The unbalanced force is what gives the “spring” of the fulcrum it’s mechanical advantage to fling up the next link.
I think much of what you said is in agreement with me. The fulcrum can rise because of the loading and unloading of the “springiness” of the rigidity in the chain. The extra force or mechanical advantage does not come from the table, but from the unbalanced forces in the chain. The rigidity in the chain is the lever, and that loads like a bent board.
next episode: Zero gravity chain fountain test proves me right (I'M IN SPAAAACEE)
I don't understand why this doesn't have more upvotes. Although if the put a beaker through one of the windows on the ISS' cupola I think Steve and Medhi had better change addresses...
@@Rockancrime this is not reddit, upvotes are likes on youtube
@@asepsolihin5199 Upvotes, Likes, Internet points... You clearly understood the heuristic.
Who are you.... Tom Scott?
It would take forever to conduct this experiment in zero gravity.
Chain fountain: As the chain arcs over the rod, the chain is heading in an upward direction. Once the weight of the chain pulls down, the upward momentum will push the chain up until the downward force cancels out the upward force, which causes an arc. Just a thought. I live on a boat and noticed the anchor chain will do the same thing, however, we slow the chain down so it doesn't cause a jamb. Until I saw this vid, I had not given it any thought. Now here I am talking about it. Must be the blue eyes and soothing voice.
Another thought (based on my anchor chain) As the chain falls down, the link between the steel balls would cause the next ball to flick up at the point of direction change. Ie, there is your upward force.
16:04 this is how you could test how much force the chain is using to "kick back" by putting the measuring tool on the other side of the pole, you don't have the mass of the chain affecting the readout, therefore you can show/ measure that there is a kickback force and explain it better.
Man, these videos with the "friendly fight" are amazing. I've found your explanation more convincing from the start, but seeing Mehdi force you to really step up and prove it - while you do the same to those who think his explanation is more convincing - is just a lot of fun!
Science is supposed to be adversarial. That's what peer reviewed is supposed to mean. Most unis and r&d have biased sponsors that want a result and will pull funding if thier predetermined solution isn't "found"
Real science is constantly telling everyone they're wrong while they all come at you full force to poke holes in your thesis.
The only way to prove this once and for all is for Steve to explain things from the top while wearing brown contact lenses so we're not mesmerized by this blue eyes
Agreed
the soothing voice would stay that way though! we're gonna need a TTS program to be talking for him to nullify it
@@verkhvo or perhaps a friend of his with a less soothing voice to read a script on his behalf?
@@michaelsorensen7567 i'd imagine all of his friends have equally magical voices. it has to be a silly robot for us to be completely sure
@@verkhvo just some dude on the road
A very similar problem is in an engineering problem sheet at a well known uni.
A chain is lifted from the ground at constant speed, what is the force on the lifting device; implicit in that is finding the reaction at the ground.
With the rod you actually do have the rod disappearing at points, when each loop unravels, and you see a super strong downward pulling of the chain as it no longer has the upward force to support it until the next part of the chain kicks in.
This interaction between the two of you is a perfect example of why peer review is such a powerful tool in scientific exploration. Everyone has bias; it is unavoidable. And sometimes people just miss things. Great job.
sometimes the bias is just that you aren't explaining it very well, because you are biased in that you already understand what you are trying to explain. That is why they say you learn a lot when you have to teach something.
@@thecookiemaker I agree 100%. I often solve my own problems when I explain the situation to a co-worker.
And this is why people that are anti-science bother me so much.
The best thing about this collab is that it shows the "normal" person how to discuss a scientific topic, and how easily you can become preoccupied towards either side, if they talk convincing enough. Thanks for being a good sport and an amazing role model!
They call them laymen
Nerd ;p
@@xAxMxWx 8:26
If we join the ends of the chain to form a loop, and spin the loop at a certain speed, the loop will expand forming a circle. The Mould Effect might just be the top half of the expanding loop we are looking at. That leveling/kickback effect do help forming a taller fountain which is the like the spinning loop kicking the ground.
I had no idea this phenomenon was in dispute, Steve's explanation chimed exactly with what I had in mind.
Arguments to the contrary remind me of my first day in physics class when one of my friends argued at length with the teacher that the table doesn't push back when you push down on it.
A really good natured considered and sincere response.
This is the definition of scientific discourse and something that conspiracists completely deny happens as part of their self affirmed world view.
Thank you Steve.
19:05 It's fascinating how you can see his eyes rotating to compensate for the head movement.
Why'd you have to say that? :(
@@Rafaelinux Because Steve Mould has done a video about eye rotation.
@@Rafaelinux and what is your problem with them saying that?
Perfect avatar for this comment
Bear in mind (a) human eyes do that normally, which you can check with a mirror, and (b) he's holding the camera he's rotating, so his body knows which way things will turn next.
"It all makes sense" that too with big blue eyes are convincing enough for me
brilliant, for the science, for the challenge to one another, for the respect of both.
Just looking at it, 20 seconds in and imagining it in my head.
When the head falls out the piece behind it follows, and the piece behind that follows and so on.
The piece behind the one in front of it only knows it's going up, so it goes up. It doesn't go down until the piece behind it starts pulling it down, which takes a little bit since it needs to build up that downward force.
This causes the piece behind it to go up a little higher than the one in front of it.
But here's the thing, the piece following the one in front of it that went a little higher than the one leading it, is also instructing the piece behind it as well, and that piece follows the instructions of the one in front of it, the same way the piece behind the head had followed the head.
So the piece behind it goes a little higher since that's what the one in front of it does, the instruction to go down takes a moment to set in so it goes higher than the last, and it repeats. The longer this goes on (the longer the chain), the higher it will grow; until the force of gravity balances it out to it's max.
The reason the last pieces flick behind, is for the same reason someone being dragged around a corner with a rope causes them to hit something at their side. The force to go forward isn't yet strong enough to cancel out the momentum from the previous direction it was going, so it goes for a little longer. Then when it turns to the right on it's path of doing down, it flicks outwards since there are no pieces behind it to weigh it down and keep it in line the way all of the other pieces (front and middle) did.
You two have basically just provided the justification for peer reviewed journals ;)
Spot on!
If only there were similar debate on news topics instead of censorship of opposing views.
Unfortunately that's not how peer reviewing actually ends up working in practice. Peer reviewing almost never involves recreating the experiments to validate the data or other relevant experiments to attempt falsifying the original, only that everything looks to have been performed and recorded correctly. It's less duplication for scientific rigour, and more editorial proofreading for science writing.
It's still important for the validity and reputation of a journal, but it's not nearly as rigorous as the vast majority of people believe it to be. Especially when you get into fields like sociology where the majority of published research can't be duplicated.
@@Meton2526 Alas, yes. And until recently, it was very uncommon to provide full data sets or full code with your papers. So in a sense, it was really just proof reading.
Real world people in real world companies trying to follow along eg chemistry papers typically expect most stuff not to work. See NileRed's channel for a taste of that.
And chemistry is still one of the harder sciences.
These are hypothesis and hypothesis have nothing to do with journals
To measure the force, I would recommend strain gauges, a Wheatstone bridge, and a USB multimeter. After you get past the annoyance of calibrating the strain gauges, you would have an accurate feed of force vs. time. (This is what early aerospace engineers did to get similarly accurate measurements of forces on wind-tunnel models) You could do it with well under $100 of instruments. Can't help you with the tedium of counting the chain links and time syncing the data to the video, though.
Probably tapping on the force gauge while video recording it will be a good sync point.
I also found that if you have a very high impedence volt meter (~100 Mega ohms, like the adc of an Arduino uno) use can use a piezo speaker as a very sensitive force gauge. You might want to divide the voltage with ceramic capicitors in series. Also note that they technically produce voltage when the drum deforms into a bowl, not when it is squished. The crystal is grown radially.
I think you meant “ten thousand American cents” :D
LOL this comment perfectly enapsulates just how insane this has all gotten.. and I absolutely love it.
Edit: btw, very engineer-y of you to considering how he can do your suggestion while still within the budget (well, the budget assuming he wins. And I realize that makes no sense for a monetized youtube video from a professional science educator, but you know what I mean!)
🔝
Strain gauges are a pain in the arse. I've used them in a full bridge before and got crazy drifts over temperature and still little sensitivity to the direction of interest. Getting pre-built gauges is the way to go.
The falling chain is creating and compounding inertia. The chain in the bucket is responding accordingly.
The lever effect is happening at the top of the arc. Assuming the chain is allowed to fall further than the reservoir then there will be more force applied by the falling chain than the static side kicking up the chain from the reservoir. The chain will continue to rise until equilibrium is achieved at the lever at the top
When this is finally settled, I'm hoping the pair of you formally publish your findings in a journal
Yes, and perhaps it shall be named The Mould-Mehdi effect
@@fureversalty I wonder if Mehdi would be happy that he's included or upset that he's second 😆
I've literally changed sides every single time, I'm just enjoying the show at this point.
And then you find out that it's not possible for everybody to be right but is 100% possible for everybody to be wrong.
@@E-Box
_the real chain fountain is the friends we made along the way_
Should make you question the videos you watch elsewhere more! That said it could be a good thing, maybe you don't form opinions into unbreakable beliefs !
Not this time. He lost at 14:58. "Inertia increases" makes no sense whatsoever.
@@frosty1433 If you say so man 🤷♂ in case it wasn't clear I'm an utter physics layman.
The kickback force convinced me because that's how jumping on a skateboard works.
The chain is just a bunch of tiny skateboards kick-flipping their way up from being tensioned in the bunched up chain.
The rod has many curves on the chain and each curve releases tension when pulled. It kicks back, transferring energy to increase the height of the chain.
When the rod is hold tightly, it begins to oscilate, but if we hold it loosely on one end, it will just push down. So, to continue the experiment, I'd suggest to do exactly that and place scales under the other side of the rod. We can also make chain drop in a container attached to the rod. This way, when the chain reaches stable state, we can actually measure the feedback force quite accurately.
lmao I love this back and forth series, I sincerely hope this never ever ends
True
I think it may have done with how convincing this was. But you know how crazy Medhi is, who knows his reaction 😂
I can reassure you that's going to happen, we still have flatearthers today...
Hopefully not over the same topic, but other "Theories".
On the topic of spotting your own mistakes. It's not just that you're not as motivated... Different people just have different approaches to problems based on their own experiences of course and so a different person might spot something you've overlooked a lot faster and easier than you might because you get used to thinking in certain ways and cannot easily switch your approach. Not necessarily a bad thing, just amplifies the benefit of getting input from a variety of people.
This reminds of how large boats utilize their anchors. As the anchor is lowered and the chain released increases the weight of the total load, a braking system has to be used along with a cooling system to prevent a total failure due to heat from friction...
This collaboration is like an inside look into the scientific method. I love the deep look into peer review. I would very much like to seem more of this amazing content.
Damn, I love watching competitions between scientists. Especially if both have very reasonable arguments, but both end up wrong and open up more trains of thought
One could argue that the half-circle radius as given by the tension and velocity of the chain is at an optimum. In one of the clips he makes a motion as if with a whip. Does the tip of the chain react to force from the hand holding the jar before it hits the ground?
@@Garganzuul we're too concerned about if we can argue instead of wether we should.
Use a strain gauge running through an oscilloscope to measure the weight change. If you have a strain gauge under the jar and under the pile, you can measure how much weight is being applied to each side while the chain is pulled out
Also I believe this doesn’t work with a lot of stiff chain like “things” like the actual rod chain is because the fact that the bead structure just allows the force to be more omnidirectional and if you did this with a rod chain in a 2d space I imagine it would work I also think the bead chain itself would go much higher if done in a 2d space
The world needs more friendly, respectful adversarial science.
Yes! Yes it does!
Yup
Yeah I have an unpopular opinion in math and it's surprisingly difficult to have a respectful disagreement with someone on it. I'm like why are you getting so upset over something so extremely not important. Math is important but technicalities in mathematic theory isn't worth fighting over.
@@shadowprince4482 haha especially when only 10 other mathematicians worldwide could understand a concept 😂
I'm imagining a mad mathematician explaining that only 10 others understand his equation, half of which agree 😂
Constructive disagrrement. Politics as well. ...Just everything really.
Interesting, you added this to a playlist so I can watch it while still "unlisted"! Cool
Remove your comment, keep this a secret
Bruh 10 hours ago
How is this 10 hr old?!?!
@@krishvasa7644 He explained in the comment itself.
@@du42bz yeah
Amazing phenomenon, wasn't aware of it. Good explanation.
if you notice the effect is also applied on the rolling cylinder . that means at some point the chain is moving faster than the cylinder itself and i didnt see you talking about that
This is probably the sweestest argument between two people on a scientific discovery. 😂
The acrylic steps test was pure genius. In my mind that's solid proof your right hands down.
yessss. Its simple, functional and... damn, quite impressive how easy its made.
this interaction is a good example of the scientific method and peer review
I mean you could test this with roller chain (like the one on bike). It has flexibility to the point where 2 links hit each other, and also simplyfies it to only one plain.
The blue eyes section at the end of the video had both me scared shitless and tearing up in laughter.
Those eyes at 19:30, can't unsee that.
I also appreciate the honesty that some of the tests performed were not equal due to the number of changed variables. Demonstrates integrity and an ability to accept criticism in the method.
I really didn't like the bug eyed look. Just creepy to me.
I’m not sure if I was persuaded by your explanation, but I was definitely persuaded by your blue eyes and soothing voice!
Omg your eyes at the end. I love it!!!
Very convincing! I don't know if I'm hallucinating, but I can also "see" the extra force from the rod, because the rod vibrates when a loop of chain lifts up.
if you know what causality is occurring your brain can chunk your visual input according to the forces you know are present. put another way, if the extra force is real, then it has visible effects, but if it's not real, the things you see must instead be something else. vision is based on inferring explanations for visual behaviors, so the sensation of seeing the forces is likely based on real and reasonable visual chunking, but it wouldn't have allowed you to skip the detailed science because without additional information your vision system wouldn't have been able to select that particular explanation with significant confidence.
The rod definitely is moving- the real question there, and one that would need some real analysis, is whether it's being pushed down by the chain as Steve Mould suggests, or if it's moving up as the weight of the chain is lowering. Or maybe it's just the initial pull on the chain that gets it going?
I love that this friendly banter has brought more and more accurate representation and example to describe the phenomena through questionning. Thank you, to share this endeavor. It is a great example how to challange our understanding of one thing to make it more accessible for everyone.
This one seemed less friendly and more passive aggressive tbh, it got friendly at the end tho.
@@GjerdanPeterson Every discussion gets high and low. Frustration will happen. It doesn't mean you hate the other party. From what I understand, Madhi and Steve were exchanging a lot of ideas between videos. To learn to explain something in words the other understand is one of the biggest challenge in human history. But when you can, it is the sweetest of victory.
This has been enlightening for us too, definitely 🙂
It's fascinatong how you have a conflict and the Physical analysis of a thing i used to be a Christmas Decoration xD
I have an idea. What if instead of the wide mouth beaker, you piled up the chain in a long acrylic tube? Say a 12-25mm diameter tube. This would allow you to have a really long(deep) static chain, and see if the fountain still rises away from non moving pile. Its similar to your floor idea, but you get to see the same effect as the beaker setup.
This would be interesting to see, if the tube was longer than that meter high maximum he established in this video. Will there be no fountain as the chain passes over the edge of the tube?
ohhhh like a graduated cylinder?
Well he did have a long tube(50-60cm) in height for the first experiment ruclips.net/video/qTLR7FwXUU4/видео.html at 6:10 , But I guess it needs to be even longer like 1.5m
That seems overly complicated... maybe do it with tube that's 1/2 to 1 inch diameter.
Thing is it wouldn't disprove mehdi because all he believes is that the momentum of the chain combined with its inflexibility at the joints causes the loop. No reactionary forces required. A deep tube still has a momentum and inflexible joints, not only that it can still support Steve's idea so I don't see how this accomplishes anything tbh.
I just noticed that in a bunched up grouping near the end of the run it starts getting pushed down the whole group of chain is moving down. This completely proves you are correct that there's a force pushing back.
In my opinion, the explanation to the chain fountain is following: It is a wave traveling at same speed as the medium, so you get a standing wave. Because the wave forms at the end of the chain, you only see half of the wave period, so at first glance, the wave does not look like a wave.
This *chain* of videos are proof of how amazing science is, and that it is definitely more about doubts and questions and trying to find the more complete explanations rather than "truths" and faith on what someone has said or written somewhere. Thanks for challenging my critical thinking.
In general, thanks for this, it is really inspiring 🤩
"It all makes sense" big eyes part missed a fairy like glittering sound to embellish the voice. But I'm reconvinced again.
"We're in the endgame now."
Wow, that step setup was pretty convincing.
Edit: wow, the whole thing was convincing. Isn't science awesome?
I'm not certain why this required many back and forth arguments to explain (I haven't yet watched the prior videos); this seemed like fairly straight forward physics.
I do particularly enjoy when my favorite YT educators interact like this.
Every video from both of you show the chain swirling with or without a pot. It creates a tornado effect. Using the right hand rule, the direction of spin matches the direction of force. The air is interacting with the chain to create the force. You can always see the chain at the end having the biggest swirling effect.
You guys just need to collab TOGETHER for a week. And in the end, the winner has to buy the loser dinner; TOGETHER.
This way it will be a beautiful end no matter what.
P.S. Make sure you include a photo of the dinner bill.
...i mean there is a plague...
Destin @ smarter everyday could be a mediator for a collaboration video.
i always loved listening in on thesis defenses when i was at school. you really get to see what a theory is made of and how good of a scientist the person is presenting it. rule number 1 is you can't take it personally! rule number 2 is rule number 1 is broken constantly by everyone
Rule #3 don't take it personal.
Rule #4 let it go.
With the rod setup, has anyone put it on a bearing?
The downward force on the rim of the rod isn't just offset by the cantilever it's also offset by torque.
GREAT suggestion! I think, just after the 5 seconds since I read your comment, that perhaps that would increase the speed &/or height of the "peak" of the up-swinging-then-falling chain ⛓, as the forward-most chain length's upward force would encounter less friction, thereby allowing the upper "fountain" section to be unraveling the chain quicker, not slower [or without the upward fountain manifesting] as in Steve's last simulation clip (where he removes the pole) because the pole is still there to 'push' against. The ball bearings on the pole would just allow it to run quicker, and as I predict, increase the height of the fountain.
Yeah. This actually seems pretty intuitive if you’ve whipped a length of rope. You get more air out of your vibration along the length of the rope when it can push off of the ground, making it so you can move the length of the rope more in the side to side and up and down while you are adding vibration. And that’s not only a function of friction reduction, it is actually propelled in the direction you are dragging off of it because the part contacting the ground is pushing the rope.
If you take a frayed piece of yarn, and you try and thread it through a hole, not much with go through. But if you wet and twist that yarn it becomes more rigid and aligned with itself, and you can push it through that hole. That extra rigidity is probably the same rigidity that allows for the rope to push against the ground. Or the chain to push against the container. It’s not a lot. But when building up in a system like that, it’s noticeable.
I'm convinced, but also hope this friendly duel of hypotheses never ends. I was smiling through the whole video.
Great science content, Steve and Medhi!
Surely this will end. What we really need is a new hypothesis duel to take its place
I think it's three major forces working together: kickback, Mehdi momentum, and standing wave
I would love to see this end with that as the answer. It is an effect of all three culminating in the fountain.
This is honestly most likely; it's unlikely that just one singular phenomenon can explain what we are seeing here.
in one of the instrument tests you should slowly lift the chain from the beaker and in the next test you should make it fountain. Comparing the average of a few of these side by side you should be seeing the difference in length to weight which might proove that there is a force
The first thing I thought when you showed the rod and the chain draped over the rod was that the gravity of it pulling down was causing it to whip up with more and more momentum among each loop which was what was causing the chain to rise. That was my initial thought when I saw that, because the chain has to go up and over the rod and when it was being yanked downwards from its own gravity it would be yanked down and then forced upwards causing a whipping motion which would force the chain to rise higher until eventually it was no longer in contact with the rod and simply following the motion that the chain in front of it was moving along.