@hv a gooday Liking your own comments doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

@@Let_The_James_Begin LO

@@Let_The_James_Begin LoL. I just posted a Varitasium video that I'd like to Action Lab to address. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r6mjmtJ9yMXKqn0.html The physics between the two situations are different, but the counterintuitive nature of them both are on par with each other.

@@Let_The_James_Begin I just watched the video and he didn't debunk it. He made a claim that glass cutters put the thickest parts at the bottom. That may or may not be true. He never addressed the issue further. In fact he actually spent most of the video explaining how liquids and solids are basically the same thing. He focuses on flaws in the crystalized (solid) structures that shift over time to create flow. And vice versa, liquids under intense pressure behave as if they were solid.

😅

Oh no

BUT IT’S FUN!

@@collinkhan4163 stfu

@@BabyDontHearnMeNoMore huh?????

That's unimportant when illustrating ideas and concepts in a 5 minute YT video. You're never going to get complete information, and many variables will not be controlled for. If you doubt it, build your own and test against slopes.

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

@@easha5706 wtf u saying lmao

@@watcherofwatchers I read it as a reference specifically to the clip of the guy at the gas station. Looks downhill to me, which would explain why he was going faster than expected.

@@easha5706 i love football

It was NOT a cube.

@@TheAllMightyGodofCod Yeah kind of a half cube

Square

Square is 2d

@@SMILE-su2fo So is your crush.

Chocolate Brain.

.niarB etalocohC

This is a great example of the "Utah" accent. Sail sounds like "Sell" - they also tend to say "Melk" instead of "milk" / "acrost" instead of "across" / "bolth" instead of "both" / "Moun'in" instead of "Mountain" where ' is a glottal stop.

Tay!

*i move away from mic to breathe*

@@ModeratelyAmused good point

@@ModeratelyAmused Actually, that's exactly what is happening and you didn't get it

pun intended? :P

@@ModeratelyAmused as it often happens in physics there are many alternative ways to describe the same phenomenon. Reasoning about pressures is often a compelling viewpoint but it's not devoid of it's own traps as well. Imagine stretching the walls of the box in front of the fan so that they wrap back behind the fan and seal it off in a cube. Now, the air blowing towards the front wall is creating a higher pressure on that wall (compared to atmospheric pressure outside), and also the suction on the hind side of the propeller is creating a lower pressure on internal side the back wall (compared the atmospheric pressure outside); if you only look at the pressure differentials acting on those two surfaces you may conclude that a force is exerted on the cube in the forward direction, while clearly that would be violation of conservation of momentum. There is clearly a flaw in the scenario I described above, but thinking solely in terms of pressures can easily lead to such traps. A similar duality of interpretation happens when reasoning about airfoils: common explanations about why wings produce lift involve talking pressures above and below the wing. While it is true that the pressure above the wing is lower than the pressure below the wing (and lower than atmospheric pressure), it is also true that the wing does deflect downwards a mass of air that perfectly balances out the upward momentum impressed on the wing. This physical fact is somewhat obscured by the fact that many textbooks describe idealized airfoils, by just looking at the section and assuming that the wing is infinitely long; wings with infinite area effectively create a downwash of 0 velocity; the only reason this doesn't break conservation of momentum is that such infinitely wide wings are simply non-physical to begin with. OTOH, a momentum theory of lift is (marginally) harder to explain precisely because it involves reasoning about the full 3d shape of the wing and thus often people who approach aerodynamics tend to first get acquainted with the good old pressure differential theory (of which sadly there are a few flawed variants around). It's important to not mix cause and effect; both pressures and downwash are related to each other; they are effects of the mechanics of pushing an object of a given shape through a fluid. The air moving downwards far behind the wing clearly cannot cause the wing to move; all forces are ultimately transferred by "contact" (which in turn is nothing more than just the electrical force between atoms when they are close enough); but such contact between air molecules and other air molecules and other air molecules and the ultimately the wing, produce an effect of downwash that MUST object the laws of conservation of momentum. Since we know that, we can use that principle to guide us to understanding how the elementary forces must have acted on the surface, even when it's hard to actually compute the details.

@@ModeratelyAmused the air flowing backward is a perfectly good proxy for deducing where the actual forces on the object are. The reason I'm replying to you is that literally said that James's explanation is not "real physics", with more than a hint that he has no clue about what he's talking about, which is wrong and I wanted to offer readers of this thread an opportunity to understand that (I don't care about convincing you in particular, there is a community of people interested in science out there, who like to skim through comments and learn stuff, so please don't be offended for "lessons", don't worry they are not meant for you). FWIW, James knows what he's talking about and is IMHO a wonderful science communicator. Science communication is about explaining complicated things in a simple way. One consequence of that is that you clearly cannot bake in a full physics book in a few minutes video. Any simplification must be understood in context and the reader should apply theen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity and not smear in bad faith.

That treadmill car sure was unintuitive.

Actionlab is the wish version of Veritasium

That video made Derek at least 10,000 USD richer.

no it isnt this is using an external energy source (bateries) and this is literally just like getting an engine and then making it face the otherway. this is also very inefficient and simple

Love em both

Probably blow a seal by mistake

@@unitedspacepirates9075 LOL

*Sad black pearl noises

blowing the seal was destined to happen

@@unitedspacepirates9075 As long as the seal gives consent.

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

@@easha5706 bruh solid water... just freeze that shit

So whats happening and what ur saying is its something happening to gravity to make it push foward, when air is moving backwards behind something? Because when i saw this video thats the only thing i can understand from it. This used to make sense because i never thought that deep about it

@@widowmaker4097 Sorry, but gravity isn't part of it. Its all about the air flow. I'll try my best to illustrate in a comment. ----------------- ---> This is initial air flow. Fan blows this direction | ---> Air flow hits the sail and pushes forward. (Wind pushes a vehicle forward) But since the fan was pushing the vehicle backwards and the air flow hitting the sail pushes forwards, nothing happens. They cancel each other out. (There are caveats to this situation when the sail or fan is set at an angle. But don't worry about that now. The Action Lab's original video focused on the cancelling of these two forces.) At this point, blowing your own sail is seen as troll physics. You shouldnt be able to pull it off because forward and backward forces contradict each other. ----------------- But the air flow doesn't stop. Some goes up, some goes down, some goes left, some goes right, and it goes at every other angle. With a flat sail; left and right counteract each other, up and down counteract each other, and all other directions counter act each other. A flat sail means the vehicle wont move. ----------------- BUT if the sail is curved then you can still direct the air flow in one direction and provide force in the opposite direction. (Almost as if this entire system is acting like the fan) Air that moves up is directed this way

@@dwightfry99 can you explain the leaf blower? I dont know what im not grasping with the leafblower one.

ik right

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

More like "cleverer" There's nothing crazy about science physics if you think about it

Same lol

😂😂😂😂😂

Well, the real answer is yes. It's possible.

I want this!

@Aviskyer Dirty mind XD

Ok, what did you learn here? I’m very interested to find out what you took away from this.

But what I don't understand is the suction would want it to move the other direction.... the one side of the fan blows and the other sucks... so why doesn't it counter each other out?

@@johansmitphotography think of it as the force *on the fan* from the high pressure side (the "blowing" side) is in the same exact direction as the force *on the fan* from the low pressure side (the "sucking" side) so there is no cancelling out.

@@rednammoc There is cancellation (one reason why it doesn't have as much thrust) but it's due to recirculation of some of the air. That said it indeed works and there's a whole bunch of examples in the sky... Thrust reversers on jet engines exploit this large scale.

@@MadScientist267 Unless you are intaking from the same point you are exhausting there is no cancellation. you may get torques or increased drag from poor intake placement. By your logic a rocket engine is more efficient than a jet engine, which we know isnt the case.

@@henrygaraffa5584 No, a jet engine doesn't suffer any issues because the intake and exhaust are on the same axis (and direction) for normal operation, and while reverser ducts are not even close to 100% efficient for various reasons, there's a lot more than just the intake air blowing thru the engine and coming back out of the ducts. If those were ducted fans, it would be all but pointless to do reversers as implemented. Reversers also most certainly do demonstrate (one of their) reductions in efficiency by recirculation... It's true most of the loss is the direction change and off axis vectors... However it is ill advised for example to use reversers where there is debris on the landing strip, due to the threat of it being kicked up and sucked into the engine... This is an indirect result of that recirculation. Again, debris induction issues aside, a jet is pushing a lot more out the back than it's sucking in the front, so those forces don't cancel out anywhere near as much. This translates back to the video because there's nothing increasing the thrust (edit: eg no combustion adding mass and accelerating everything further) in the prop, only the energy the motor is giving it. When that air comes back around from the deflecting device, pointing backwards, vortices guarantee some of it will be curled back around and into the suction side of the prop. This translates to significant lost thrust because the circulating mass provides no net force on the vehicle... And... If turbulence is excessive, the prop will unload, decreasing system efficiency even further than it already is. In a nutshell this is a cool academic demonstration but between this and the reversal and associated drag losses, has less than zero chance of showing up on a commercial (or otherwise non-toy-like) design because it's mostly a "how much can you steal and it still goes" deal 🤣 If you used a ducted blower with a well placed intake, in that situation you'd be correct, no recirculation, no loss of thrust due to that mechanism. Correction - there would *still* be recirculation, just not via the blower... Entrainment of the vortices... A little bit different but a similar end result. Unless you ducted the "sail" (reversing device)... But now you're just in "really badly designed nozzle" territory, and the whole thing kinda starts to lose its original appeal 🤷‍♂️

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

😀☝🏼 one moment there

It actually works and is really nice if you can do it

@@du42bz sir, read this again out of context

Good points. I also found it odd that he left out the momentum of the intake air. In his video on put-put boats, he puts it straight, since they take in water then expel it through the same opening... how can that result in thrust?! It has to do with how focused the intake vs. the expulsion.

@@gregbell2117 thank you for bringing me back to this comment! I will retract my previous statement as I believe I was mistaken. The intake direction does not matter, only the exhaust. This is because, if you imagine a jet engine stationary, the thrust is directly proportional to the change in momentum of the air. If you make the jet engine intake from the sides, or even behind, what's the change in momentum? Still the same because the initial air is not moving, and final air moves at exhaust velocity. Of course, it's possible that drawing air in from the front is more efficient due to lower resistance and suctioning air outside of the engine to flow that way too, this is essentially what bypass is. I hope I explained it well, lmk if u have any questions

the lorax was 10 years ahead of us

Pulling yourself up with your shirt or hair or whatever doesn't work because the energy is contained within yourself. Whereas blowing your own sail works because energy can exit the system.

@@georgehill3087 joking but ok

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

@@easha5706 he made that right?

But far less efficient

Yeah

If you use a holo donut shape cut in half it would be efficient

Doesnt equal. But if you are in a situation in which your thrust source direction is fixed and attached to the payload you are wanting to move, then using this to redirect your thrust is a way to get SOME thrust. Its not going to be as much as if you could just turn the thrust.

He's truly a marvelous teacher, isn't he?

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

Yeah 🤣🤣😊

Yup

My dream for you, action lab to make is : melting wood or solid water or shape holding glass

F

F

F

F

F2

Oh ok I am originaly from India too but not born there

@@easha5706 ok bro

Ho mi God ☁ 👋🚀 ☁☁ ✨ BYEBYE* ☁ ✨ 🎈 ✨ ☁ ✨ ✨ 🌾✨💨 🏃 🏠🏢

I am serious because I love physics

or change the pitch of the blades, like in the GA industry

And duct tape.

This but unironically

I used to work developing baby incubators. Guess how we modeled the air ductwork for our prototypes.

yes its entertaining

just 90? what about the other 10%? vsauce?

@@neodong6060 imagine if I was ill and I took leaves.

@@neodong6060 yep

Same likes and replys yay

Isn't that the same as you lighting your own cigarette or someone else lighting it for you?

Then That Person Must Stand In A Veichel To Follow

@@humanbeing1429 lol no

Then it's not blowing your own sail anymore.

@@georgehill3087 yea

Pekka is my favorite coc

@hv a gooday 🤍

Awesome episode by the way ..I just started cursing after she killed mobius and loki

Who cares

Can u help me try to get him this idea Place the worlds bounciest serface on both sides top and bottom and place a ping pong see how fast it moves

Except it had wheels and was on a solid surface and not water.

@@MrT------5743 that's why I said 'with extra steps'. And if I'm not mistaken, airboats *can* go on solid surfaces

@@amirrifqi1772 so if by "extra steps" you mean changing a boat to a car then ok. But then you could have compared it to an airplane with extra steps, or a bicycle with extra steps too.

@@MrT------5743 Just add tyres. And I don't know where you live but cars don't run by a fan, it runs on something called an engine usually. If compared to planes, it doesn't fly, and bicycles is not powered in any way except by humans.

@@MrT------5743 I thought a family man would know this. What

He’s NOT saying cells?! I just figured it was “science lingo.” 😂

Utah accent activate. Also listen to how people with this accent say "milk" "across" "both" & "mountain"

We don't care

Ok gg

@@JulianGaming007 What is gg

@@r.iyushofficial5318 it means "good game". You usually say that after you play a game with someone or when someone else wins. it's also often used when someone accomplishes/archives something

@@JulianGaming007 Ohh Thanks for sharing this with me

☺