Yee

I thought the same thing

this is a bot.

reporter

I suppose it could be viewed as them taking a hit, however I was considering net force and would say they had the most force transferred to them through the system. All of the walls pushed against each other on the axis of the hit, and those pushes were all equal. That meant when the ends didn't have something to push against them they'd fly away however they still pushed against the sections of wall that are still standing. Absolutely love this kind of interaction and am rambling a bit, sorry :)

Baseplate doesn’t move in the video though??

@@squirtlefails It does move ever so slightly, you can see some ripple like movement in the slow-mo shots. I don't know what that means in terms of energy transfer or whatever so

I'd say it moves quite significantly. The edges get a good amount of air, on top of the rippling effect. It similarly would've been interesting to see the effect of different points of impact, e.g. higher or lower on the wall.

@@rk9island i think this applies to the 1st and 3rd Newton Laws. The baseplate moving back is from the reaction and helped absorb some of the force, its kinda like suspension i think, if the baseplate didnt move back the full force would be absorbed by the walls.

bro wtf is a "realistic" "lego war situation"

perfectly said, couldn’t be more accurate :)

he just like me fr

*dies of laughter* thanks for killing me! see you at my non-existent funeral!

Same

And there’s something hilarious about the poor little knight flying backwards under a tsunami of black plastic🤣

Single wall vs howitzer

Lego Abrams vs 40mm cannon

bot

@@worldprops333 He’s not even a bot. If he’s a bot, then he would have a Mr beast pfp and a verified checkmark. His video will also look like “Who is (insert username here)?” or something similar.

@@HalfLife3onSteamPLZ ik

bot

Daily Reminder ACAB

more bots

A surprisingly large amount of science is just adults playing with toys and writing down what happens.

unfortunately, it seems that some of us kids could not play with this amount of lego bricks since they were HELLA EXPENSIVE(and they still are)

@@worldprops333 do you think everybody who isn't toxic is a bot?

When i was a kid I always tried to simulate 9/11 World Trade Center. I threw a Lego plane at a Lego house

I mean rechnically Statics are scinece I guess, but I don't think most construction engineers would call themselves scientists.

Scientist is the guy who figures out that mass and size affect the outcome of the impact. Engineer is the guy who figures out how to make the better cannon and/or wall.

@@brandonquist8394 🤓

And exactly what science did you learned here?

@@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon Distribution of cinetic force in physical objects. So physics.

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww audgadgahdgaydgwuagdusgduwgahsdgwhagsjdgwjagsjd bleh bots!!!

@@worldprops333 so many bots man

The force went back, but when there was no way to go back, they went up instead. Freaky

@@runtergerutscht4401 Not really, think back to high school physics class. One of the rules that's battered into your head is "any force will have an equal and opposite force applied to the object exerting the initial force". In any given impact, the ball is exerting force on the wall backwards (toward the lego man), causing it to either slow down or to cause it to go flying the other way. The walls accept the backward force spreading them throughout themselves and anything they're attached to, creating a downward force on the base. The downward force on the plate causes an upward force on the plate, causing one of two situations, either pushing the wall up, surrendering the wall to the initial blast backward by the ball, or the walls hold, allowing the baseplate to push off of the table, creating an upward force in the baseplate itself. (There'd also be a backward force on the baseplate, since it's attached to the walls until they pop off, but I'm going to assume that the baseplate was stopped from going backwards, somehow.)

I like it because it was just like "Surprise! There's another wall!"

I would be more concerned with "most of the time"

more bots.

"You may die, but that is a sacrifice i'm willing to make"

BOTS BOTS EVERYWHERE

Thanks for your 18+ spam.

Lol..... yeah this is more interesting than I thought it would be

Eh, people might think they're smart, but actual smart people wouldn't feel the need to show off their "intelligence" in a youtube comment. It's more like pit of circlejerking.

true

I bet he checked off-camera and didn't add it to the video

@@Secreto31126 still, in the presentation of the experiment numerous test should be shown to display the varying outcomes of each shot.

@@fordo5361 nah mate we don't need a 30min video that might as well be 5min long

@@MikoOhneHose not hard to have a sped up sequence of shots, instead of a 5 minute video it could be made to be 10 and have ad revenue also

And steel as well

More efficient for one shot. But if you're going to do engineering, you want longevity, something that larger walls give you against multiple shots.

It’s because it acts like a long shock absorber with all the space between the walls

It's super interesting how, except for the tungsten double wall and steel double and quad, the total number of wall pieces in all the tests after single are either within 1 wall of the number it takes for the single, or the first multiple of that kind of wall that's greater than or equal to the number it takes for single walls. And even in those exceptions, it's still pretty close: all of those exceptions only use 1 more group of wall pieces than needed to meet the constrant I mentioned, and I wonder if we would see those numbers come down if it was averaged across repeated tests.

long u wall?? literally only took 5 walls to deflect tungsten

Hes gonna invent new lego pieces i swear

JK Brickworks has done that (well, rather a Lego football/basketball accelerator).

oh shit

How to clone the earth using legos

it would be possible when they invent extra stronk legos

how did you calculate that and some bot is litterally doing this again

@@Vlyg11 no need for any calculating. just go look at basically any density chart

Ye

Isnt osmium even denser? Even if its super expensive

Actually, osmium is slightly denser. The original density calculations were off, and no one bothered to redo the test for a long time, long enough for it to be common knowledge that iridium is the densest.

same

Well, not really, tungsten balls are the equivalent of a cannon in real life and a real wall, also its a really close distance so the shot is at the max speed, so no, real walls against real cannons dont last long either

@@ericmagana3215 I'd say they definitely do, considering many forts throughout history took many tens, or even hundreds of thousands of cannon balls during sieges that lasted many months before finally falling.

@@tuxtitan780 but were they shot from 10 centimeters of distance?, there are many things here, for example thr base of the wall if it was buried would give thr walls stronges bases, this lego one is only holding with a few studs, but like i said, i doubt they were shot at point blank range

@@tuxtitan780 I love how Americans just ignore a key factor of someone's conversation and then tell them they're wrong when in reality you are just stupid and can't read your own language :)

@Torrent Amador same here, its a shame KZfaq is focusing more on removing the dislike button than fixing actual issues like the rampant bots that make Russia look like amateurs

@@baconwizard yea youtube is more concerned with censoring peoples opinions rather than sexbots

@@nou5440 The fact they haven't sorted out these literal porn-spambots, yet added "Misinformation" as a report reason shows their priorities.

@@baconwizard Dislike button removed?

I was gonna suggest the same thing

idk can we?

idk can we?

idk can we?

Idk can we?

idk can we?

Next video: How many neighbors stop a lego cannon?

Like that robot from the incredibles

@@Hypersaiyanike That's so weird, I just watched that scene.. yeah like that..

i hate how many bots there are

@@worldprops333 me too

S C I E N C E IS AMAZING

This only happens because the base plate is not rigid. The breaking of a wall in this case is disconnection from the floor. The front walls survive as they can pull the base plate when rotating but not the back walls. So they break off.

@@Cyber_N-7660 P H Y S I C S (earrape)

They build, lost and made it thicker

Just a man dying over and over 8 times

"Alright Sven, we've finished the wall. Now go stand behind it while we fire a cannon at you."

@@EpicNerdsWithCameras Haha xD It's always poor Sven!

@@EpicNerdsWithCameras Lmao

Destructive ways, too

Dude. You seriously underestimate the lego guy. All lego guys ever do is step on lego, they are practically immune to pain.

He had luck when ever the "BALLS" did not break through.

Yet he remains unflinchingly 🙂 throughout this experiment.

This isn't just for our entertainment. This is important scientific research.

more bots.

@karolin don’t care

@@literallydeadpool based

this is a bot

@@dinhtuan752 i know

reporter

Yeah I'd agree. I think he'd need less walls

Yeah, the energy would be more focused on the wall, instead of going over to the lego floor.

@@leafoftales4098 I think he would need more walls

@@Egerit100 Agreed

this is a bot.

Dang these bots are so annoying...

@@shotgun_blammo sadly, I was reporting these bots several times, but KZfaq didn't do anything with the comments I reported, even hasn't deleted them.

ok, thanks for my content.

Wait... They are deleted!

@@mic8per yes, it looks like but there are still a few left

I think this is because the cannon is limited by the maximum speed it can get the launcher to move. The balls all leave the cannon at similar velocities, so more energy is transferred to speed up the heavier balls instead of being lost in the cannon when the launcher hits the front. As the projectile mass approaches what the cannon is capable of moving, I think we'd see diminishing returns on how many walls it could breach.

Potential energy depends on the mass, just like how they can have different potential energy when sitting on the same table.

cause the launcher has mass too and the heavy ones can extract more energy from it than the light ones

F=ma vs e=mc2 Momentum vs kinetic energy Pushing force vs impact energy

The rubber bands are accelerating both the push bar and the ball. With the lighter balls more energy is going to the bar which is lost when it strikes the end.

Not weight but density, a big enough stack of paper will be as heavy as the tungsten projectile, but it won't be as practical and as effective.

this comment section has a bot infestation

this is a bot.

@@dinhtuan752 how do you know

Deleted

more bots.

bot

Daily Reminder ACAB

Lol

bot~

bot

bot#

Daily Reminder ACAB

Great observation! some quick data analysis reveals that the number of walls is approximately modelled by n=m*sqrt(x), where n is number of walls, x is the weight of the ball, and m is some constant coefficient. The coefficient m for the double wall was exactly double that of the quad wall, but the other coefficients didn't have any nice relations. For those curious, I plotted the transformation z=sqrt(x) (square root of weight) against n and got a graph that was roughly linear (I tried a few other transformations, such as logarithmic and cube root [single wall fit a cube root well], but square root seemed the best fit across the board). When you have the "linear" graph n=mz, you can calculate m by doing rise/run and compare the model to the actual values. The model for the double wall was the "nicest" because comparing theoretical values correctly matched the actual values (after rounding) 2.12035979898674 3.37485975740272 5.99728316967547 8.12035979898674 Obviously many things made certain points deviate from the trend, such as the discrete nature of n, the fact that the kinetic energy may not have increased the same for each ball (as the cannon would eventually reach a limit where the increased weight would absorb all kinetic energy of the elastic bands, meaning any extra weight would have the same KE), and the fact that the flexible floor absorbed some impact, to name a few things.

@@Wagon_Lord also - friction and resistance between the floor and walls resulting from the method of connection - push-fit. And in case of floor, other than flex i will assume also motion and friction wich will count as absorbent, different each time because of changing mass of entire structure dependant on number of used wall elements

@@Wagon_Lord Quite strange, I found that the number of walls destroyed is more proportional to the cubic root of the weight...

@@noefillon1749 Yes for the single wall I found cube root/cubic a better model, but for the others, square root fit the trend better

@@Wagon_Lord I chose to only look for the first column because the number in the others are really small. Anyway I would like to test a model : The potential energy E0 in the rubber band, that will be given to what is attached to it is a constant (doesnt depend on the mass of the ball). The energy lost by friction with lego thing in contact withe the ball is also constant Ef1 = F*L where L is the length of the ramp. Let's say E0 - Ef1 = E1 (it's a constant). The energy lost by friction with the ball is proportional to its mass, Ef2 = k1*m (may be it's less than a proportional model but not more, because if the ball starts rolling in the ramp, the friction decreases). May be we can negelect this contribution. Then the remaining of the mass E1 - Ef2 will be given to the ball (E) and to the lego thing attached to the ball (E') that also moves at the same speed, proportionnally to each one's mass (m and m') : E/m = E'/m' and E+E' = E1-Ef2 E = (E1-Ef2)*m / (m+m') E = (E1*m - k1*m²) / (m+m') We can use this model supposing that the number of wall destroyed is proportional to E : n = (n1*m - k*m²) / (m+m') This model shows that there is an optimal mass to destroy the most walls (which is quite realistic, even though I don't know if a power between 1 and 2 on m in k2*m² isn't better than 2). I suppposed that the pulling force of the band was bigger than the friction. But the contrary is totally possible and this is where the model gives negative values. It should be n = max(0 ; (n1*m - k*m²) / (m+m')).

this is a bot.

BOT

deleted

If only he taped the base plate to the table for accurate force dissipation

Well at that stage , adhesives should be allowed too then

shut up bot

more bots.

bot

you are a bot

you are a bot

No it’s because the force was transmitted to the ends of the walls

this is a bot

MORE NJTROORS BOTS

this is a bot.

BOT

when do le bots stop

Gyro favorite food

Finally another jojo fan

Is that a jojo reference?

​@@arandomstranger6976 no

aa bots no

@@worldprops333 LOOK AT HOW MANY BOTS THERE ARE