If you're gonna do it properly, measure it. 5 or 10 drops with the 4 weight at 1 height, 5 or 10 drops with the 1 weight at 1 height, 5 or 10 drops with the 1 weight at 2 height. Measure the washer height from surface, a ruler should be accurate enough, drop the lowest and highest of each group and average the rest. It won't prove anything more than you're already proving, but it makes for a bulletproof argument. Not sure we're allowed to mention bullets when we're talking about mv^2, though.
@@Ian.Gostling It will be the same old same old after tomorrow, rich get richer and poor get poorer, that's how the establishment has run the country since the Victorian era.👍😊
Another nice demonstration Ian. And another nice advert for Sainsburys lol. Not sure whether to give you 10/10 or mark you down a bit for your singing. Just kidding - I like to hear someone happy in their work. 10/10.
Nice setup once again, ian! I just did a similar experiment myself again and yes, one mass dropped 4 feet VS '4 mass dropped 1 feet gives us pretty much the same results. Keep the evidence coming!
Both momentum and kinetic energy hold true. But a collision occurs instantaneously and the momentum is released not over one second but a much shorter time. This is where the kinetic energy holds true. A good analogy is charging a capacitor with 1 coulomb for 1 hour and then discharging 3600 coulombs for 1 second. I am currently writing a paper on the multi-dimensional multi-verse that explains energy, gravity and electric charge and their origins.
The funny thing is, I sometimes try to change my language, because certain words trigger DraftScience. If I said, "moment of inertia," he'll probably think it has something to do with a moment in time or something (at some points he actually did say that). So now I refer to it was "rotational inertia" so that it is as clear as possible to him. He still doesn't get it obviously, but at least he has no excuse now.
Sometimes when he squints he reminds me of Joe Biden. Funny how it's possible to talk about levers for hundreds of hours and never mention anything about F x distance. I think your example with spoons was the most educational but he didn't get it. You can't calculate different momentums and energies in the same object.
You are increasing the moment of inertia Ian. Another definitive video that any Physics teacher could use to demonstrate the moment of inertia. Well done again!!!
2) Now I've watched the second half I think Pyrroh314 & Postiemania's succinct explanations clarify it best for me. I think they've narrowed it down to it's essence, just as your demonstration does. Thank you for teaching me something the best way possible.
I've only watched the first half so far but already I'm really impressed by your clever, counter intuitive demonstration - I don't yet know what is to follow but this part alone, surely is worthy of the likes of Bruce Yeany etc showing to pupils. You could win a pub bet on this - if you didn't mind carrying your apparatus around with you lol! I confess that until you hinted the results wouldn't go the way we intuitively think about it, I was automatically thinking it would go less high without the "assistance" of the balancing weight. When this happens, I could either feel st00pid and defensive, pull a Gary excuse out from where the sun don't shine, or I could thank you for teaching me something I should have realised already - which is what he should be doing. Obviously I'm gonna thank you cause I think this is quite brilliant and memorable. This IS something that should be taught in schools. In fact, I'd love to build it just to show off and trick people, wishing it was my invention lol. I will probably just share it with people instead as I've become a bit lazy for doing experiments lately, distracted by various things I need to tend to - but you have certainly inspired me again. Possibly related ... Thinking back two or three years to when Gary was talking about dropping a mass on one side of a lever (or whatever term applies) then predicting how the mass at the other end would launch upwards and miraculously come back down to RE-launch the first mass back up (he showed a pathetic animation demonstrating this reciprocal action as if it were fact) I wasted a fair bit of time constructing something to attempt to replicate this idea of his but it was the most troublesome, unsatisfactory experiment ever, getting even the first launch to happen... ... I had to reduce the mass of the first object being launched to something like a TENTH of the mass dropping onto the other end, just to get it to launch a few inches - getting it to land back in the right place was A) near impossible - random at best - and B) a bit pointless trying to acheive anyway, seeing as I had already found that his idea didn;t even work when the masses were the SAME, so a tenth of the mass wasn't gonna fair any better at launching the far bigger mass - obviously. But I tried it just to demonstrate the futility of his "IF WE DO THIS THEN THAT WILL HAPPEN" type assumptive thinking. It looked too simplistic to be true but I wanted to check with reality before criticising it. I think your demonstration goes a long way to explaining why it was never gonna work. None of us would mind his assumptive thinking IF he was man enough to just ACCEPT that he had been proven wrong and if he just took the opportunity to LEARN something from his mistakes - which most of us make - None of us are pretending to be perfect - only him. It's so ironic how far from perfect he is. He's virtually never right - which is sad really - a bit of me would LOVE him to be right about SOMETHING! But this is what happens when ego is made more important than discovery.
The increased height is because you have reduced the amount of mass you are trying to rotate. Yes you have reduced the moment of inertia thus proving inertia. Well done Ian.
nice. this is good stuff. interesting. The help from the weight doesn't help because the spring has to move that mass too, the help is weak compared to the spring trying to move the mass as fast as possible. cool
I'm not sure if I understood your point completely, maybe you are right, but I would say the problem was that, because of its mass, the lever (or the spring actually) was less sensitive to the difference between the setups. If the weights were very very small, it's easy to imagine the velocity ratio would be 2:1, even when balanced like that, because the spring would basically feel just the mass of the lever. But this still shows the difference between 2m1d and 1m2d setups.
Not just balanced as in the static case but the position of the balance on the lever is critical because of the squared radius term,this explains the overshoot on the half mass.
Gary Mosher does not listen. He made that exceedingly clear. You can teach him, he denies to be conscious. With people like Gary only the "philosophizing with the hammer", that Nietzsche had it mind, can help.
I know it would be difficult Ian, to see and catch both probes but I think it would be good to launch both at the same time, in that instance you should get a 2 to 1 velocity ratio. The 2 mass seems to be arcing over to the left a lot more than the 1 mass too.👍😊
@@Ian.Gostling Launched individually, the 1 mass should reach roughly 2x the height of what the 2 mass achieves, travelling at 1.4x velocity. When launched together, you should get a 2 to 1 velocity ratio, so the 1 mass, should achieve 4 times the height of the 2 mass, both heights being a bit lower that what you would get launching them on their own but the ratio of 2 to 1 velocity should show up. 👍😊
Hey Ian, can you repeat this, but try to align the camera with the highest line when you launch the 1mass on the outer end of the lever? We are viewing it from below and it seems like it reached a height of almost 3.5 distances instead of 3. Gary is claiming victory now, the same as Stephen's experiment.
PPPPS - Do you get free Jaffa cakes from Sainsbury's? Have you considered launching them using a French loaf as a lever? You can use a stale sausage as a pivot.
PPPS - I also think he's wrong about Jaffa cakes being biscuits, making them VATable. When they were taken to court over it byCustoms & Excise, they won by proving it IS a cake, just a very small one, by baking a series of them in different sizes, until it was inarguable that the largest was in fact a cake.
PPS How is he going on with his free energy machine Patent application? Oh yeah - I forgot - He doesn't know what a Patent is - He thought sending it in an envelope to himself constituted a patent (LMFAO) Maybe he can cite a SINGLE instance of that holding up in a court of law, even when supposedly used as evidence of copyright. A patent is a completely different thing, altogether ... "A patent is a completely different thing!!!" (AIRPLANE REFERENCE LOL) "The red zone is for people who make up their own facts" "Listen Betty, don;t start with your red zone sh .. again" Who said Americans don;t have a sense of humour - they gave us Goofy for a start.
You're so witty Steve! The funny thing is he is always bringing your experiment up as a supportive example to his theory,complimenting you on how well you did it😮then decrying experiments that use carts with many wheels because of all the lost energy in the wheels momentum😂
@@Ian.Gostling I think those wheels weighed about 7 grams - on carts carrying about 0.5- 2 Kilograms - so as you of course already realise, the angular momentum of the cart wheels is so neglibible, it's probably less than the measurement error. Even if we went to the trouble of calculating it, it would be wasted effort because - well we all know why.
Yeah, as I recall, he claimed, quite ridiculously, that the (half snooker ball) losing grip slowed down due to friction - overlooking that obvious fact that when something loses grip and skids instead of rotating, it actually goes FASTER. It's all a long time ago now and I can't be bothered trying to get through to him any more but I appreciate all the efforts everyone is making to get it to listen to reason.
great demonstration. One way to put what you've shown is that while the force at the other end of the stick is the same, the smaller mass makes the force (to slow down and stretch the thing) slower. The human using a lever is fooled maybe, and "doesn't see a difference" but the universe does.
Only when you accelerate it! That's what he used to complain about,he fails to recognise that by applying any force by hand or otherwise to the lever there has to be an acceleration!
That is a very good demonstration Ian and very complex to analyse because of the spring properties, the lever mass and the two different masses and the positions on the lever. All three of Newton's laws of motion rely on inertia and simply stated as inertia is the resistance to change of motion. Thanks for the video.
I'm currently doing the same type of experiment once again. Getting the same results as you ofcourse. No matter what type of lever, what type of weights, what shape they have or whatever, the 1mass twice the distance from the fulcrum ALWAYS oscillates slower. Nature must be broken....
Nice demo Ian. If he used his hands rather than blowing hot air out of his mouth, he may figure out where he quire obviously wrong. Hope you are well mate. 👍😊
Thanks for this demonstration. Yet again another variant of this type of experiment showing that no, it's not the same thing! Such a simple experiment, yet he never does this himself, but oh so proud of his lever balance on his porch which is ofcourse a decisive piece of evidence.
The real (more difficult) maths of this experiment involves torque inside the rolling ball, so take my flat plane model as a "guesstimate". You could probably rig a flat plane + flat block (same mass) experiment so that the forces involved are similar to this one and you'd probably get very similar results. Anyhow, here is an AI-generated article about the experiment you are doing here: Rolling ball down a pipe When a ball rolls down a pipe, several factors come into play. The ball’s motion is influenced by the pipe’s shape, the ball’s initial velocity, and the forces acting upon it. Here are some key points to consider: Force and Friction: The force of gravity pulls the ball down the pipe, while friction acts against the ball’s motion. The type of friction present depends on the surface of the pipe. If the pipe is rough, the ball will experience more friction, which can cause it to slow down or even stop. If the pipe is smooth, like frictionless ice, the ball will roll faster and maintain its velocity. Conservation of Energy: The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of a closed system remains constant. In the case of a ball rolling down a pipe, the ball’s potential energy (stored energy due to its height) is converted into kinetic energy (energy of motion) as it rolls down the pipe. The ball’s speed and height will change as it rolls, but the total energy remains constant. Pipe Shape: The shape of the pipe affects the ball’s motion. A curved pipe can cause the ball to change direction or speed, while a straight pipe allows the ball to maintain its velocity. The ball’s speed and direction will also depend on its initial velocity and the angle of the pipe. Rolling and Sliding: When a ball rolls down a curved slope, it can experience both rolling and sliding motion. The ball’s surface can come into contact with the pipe at different points, causing it to roll, slide, or a combination of both. The ball’s speed and direction will depend on the angle of the slope and the coefficient of friction. In summary, the motion of a ball rolling down a pipe is influenced by the pipe’s shape, the ball’s initial velocity, and the forces acting upon it. The ball’s speed, direction, and height will change as it rolls down the pipe, but the total energy remains constant.
Update: 1:33 1:44 I used a "floating timer" android app at these times with frame speed at 0.25, and I got 3 seconds for each, so the actual time was about 0.75 seconds which is what the μ values are suggesting for ranges closer and closer to 3ft (36"). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This might help (assumes pipe & moving object is flat, so actual value may deviate from this overestimate of net "inertial" force & acceleration down the pipe): Forces on m: In pipe (at -45° angle): Fnet~ma= mg↓+N↗+ f↖ = mg·√½ ·(1↘+1↙+1↗ +μ ↖) = mg·√½ ·(1 -μ)↘ Friction constant: μ(abs plastic on steel)≈ 0.1 to 0.3 Update: Closest I determined for Ian's experiment is more than 0.3. So, taking (mean value) μ≈0.2 , we have: a≈g·√½ ·(0.8)↘ ≈(⁹⁸/₂₅)√2↘ ≈5.54 m/s²↘ Try μ=0.1 => mult a by 0.9/0.8 => New value is a≈(9/8)(⁹⁸/₂₅)√2 => a≈ (441⁄100)√2 ≈6.24 m/s². For μ=0.3: mult a(μ=0.1) by 0.7/0.9 => New value is a≈ (7/8)(⁹⁸/₂₅)√2 => a≈ (³⁴³⁄100)√2 ≈4.85 m/s². (I worked out other values like time in pipe, pipe displacement, pipe exit velocity, range for 0.1 to 0.3 in replies below. I just recalculated everything there b/c I previous wrongly had 36" pipe displacement but that was the height!)
You had 36√2 " as the displacement through the pipe, so the friction constant should be more than I assumed. (I will try different values & try to get above and below the average constant) For μ=0.2: s=½at² t=√(2s/a) 36"√2=1.293m=½at², a ≈(⁹⁸/₂₅)√2 => t= √(2(1.293)/((⁹⁸/₂₅)√2)) = √(25(2)(0.9144)/98) = 5√(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ ) ≈ 0.683 secs If μ=0.1 this is: t= (5√(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ ))*√(8/9) ≈ 0.644 secs For μ=0.2: v= at = (⁹⁸/₂₅)(√2 )*(5√(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ )) = (⁹⁸/₅)*(√(1143⁄₃₀₆₂₅ )) ≈ 3.787 m/s (~ 8.47 mph ) Which is the initial speed for a projectile which starts at an angle of 45° to the ground. If μ=0.1, v=at gives: ((441⁄100)√2)*( 5√(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ )(⅔√2)) = 29.4√(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ ) ≈ 4.02 m/s Taking the U to be 3.787 m/s (μ=0.2), the max range for this is: U²/g= (⁹⁸/₅)²(1143⁄₃₀₆₂₅ ) /9.8 ≈ 1.463 metres (~3 ft 21.6") Taking the U to be m/s (μ=0.1), the max range for this is: U²/g= (29.4²(1143⁄₆₁₂₅₀ ))/9.8 ≈ 1.65 metres (3 ft 28.8″)
Just realized that you were talking heights and not pipe lengths, which probably explains the timing discrepancy! So, for 36" height it should be 36√2≈50.91"≈ 1.293m displacement down the pipe! 🤦♂️ - Update: Recalculated everything, so should be okay.
Thank you for the video and demo Ian, it helps me get it down in my head, so really appreciate it mate. Hope your OK Ian, Goofy seems quiet, must be cooking up a bunch of new excuses.😂👍
For 7:11, this isn't true. The horizontal distance the 2x velocity object will travel will depend on the times they spend in air. If they are launched horizontally, then they spend the same amount of time in air before dropping (ignoring air resistance, etc.), so the 2v object will travel 2x distance. When the initial launch angle changes, the times both will spend in air will not be equal, but it's going to vary. In fact, I'm pretty sure when you have an initial launch angle upwards, the 2v object will travel NEITHER 2x distance nor 4x distance but something in-between that will vary with the launch angle. We'd have to do the math directly, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. If you wish, you can request me to do the math precisely.
