This Drill Powered Spool Proves Me Right 

Yes

Quite,interesting but not convincing yet! Keep going

@@Regularsshorts you havent even watched the video yet lol

what if you drop the pot while it happens

I dunno, but I think you ate spaghetti before shooting this video, just look on the corners of your mouth 😂

Only one option left, you have to go into space and perform the experiment without influence of gravity or friction.

Yes!

I believe in you, mehdi

That debate is simply so exciting to follow, thanks a lot for you both

Or in Zero-G plane, the closest thing we have on earth for no gravity.

10,000 cents says you're wrong! Not just feels like. It's just like that, but with videos, not letters.

@@Unsensitive Yea I was just thinking this is literally the same thing in a different format. Hell, we could be witnessing history being written right now as this ... feud(?) might be in the history books of the future (or ... if books are phased out, then whatever format history is taught in the future...)

Man i love it when scientists and mathematicians throw duel at each other.

I know just like we did it for fun and Knowledge I am not saying knowledge isn’t fun

Einstein Bohr debates!!!! I feel you!

Oh yeah good call, that's pretty pronounced.

this comment fully proved the theory for me, i don’t see how it could be anything else besides the moving chain having it’s own “push” affect on the stationary one

That's a really good point.

I actually came down into the comment section to mention this, glad other people agree!

This is literally spot on. Thank you

I'm glad that someone other than myself used to find the properties of such stiff chains interesting as a child! I was quite fascinated by them... well, regular bead chains of various sizes, not anchor chains. :P If you tie them into certain knots in just the right way, you can get them to retain their shape, and thus produce neat little sculptures made out of chain loops. It's been too long for me to remember exactly how it's done though. ;_;

Fascinating

I was wondering just this now, thanks for sharing.

Thing about old-school mentality is that they don't care for deeper thinking, just that something works, and that's it. I will say though, that when you do run into those gems that are just as deep thinkers as others, because they have the wisdom of an old person, with the creative mind of a kid.

I vaguely recall this phenomenon depicted in a Saturday morning cartoon...it might be better called the "Wile E. Coyote effect" ...or is that the act of running off a cliff and remaining suspended in the air until you realize you're in midair?

Damn I love you folks

Where Neil and Bill cannot be, Derek can. Nice to see so much good and prolific scientific debate out for a general audience who are genuinely interested in the questions, the answers, and of course the methods.

But first, ask NileRed to cover them with gold ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HafE177cV_o.html

RU-vidrs testing weird things and discovering effects should be a thing, and I'm glad the trend has started x)

I saw this comment at 42 likes, as it should have been seen.

Veritasium had a similar type of situation with two different explanations for an effect and a bet. Might want to check that out if you haven't already

I feel this same thing. Something, about the purity of science.

Seeing real debate and discussion with obvious respect for eachother is such a good example to anyone interested in science. It's also a massive contrast to those psudo science RU-vidrs that promote things like flat earth and antivax.

This 100%

Ahh romantific

ElectroSTEVE

MouldyBOOM

SteevoBOOM

I am sad Steve didn't use a wobble dog and settled for a drill :(

I think the de-looping effect is also an important part that needs to be better understood. Why does it give an upward force when the loops are pulled straight?

You should do a follow-up video in light of the new info! Some of the things in your video could use updating

Oo never thought I'd see you here shrimpy, love u

@@fwiffo Did you not watch the video? There are at least 3 examples of falsifying in this video alone.

18 HOURS AGO? HOW?

@@aashsyed1277 Patreon supporters have early access.

@@timongutleb8940 ;0

me too

Chain-ged?

that's a very good idea

I was thinking a layer of neoprene or rubber would be interesting

But how much force can the cotton absorb?

Wouldn't the chain itself negate the usefulness of putting something soft at the bottom? If the beads are metal wouldn't they be hitting off each other and still creating the effect? I guess it might dampen the initial fountain, but with a long chain I don't think it would change anything.

@@blakeestes Couldn't you in theory test different materials lining the bottom that would potentially provide a measurable difference if the kick-back is the force responsible for creating the fountain? (Even if the difference is small due to the beads hitting off each other, that'd be uniform among the test I think?)

da this is some of my favorite Y.T. content

Whats cool is this is how it's always been its just in journals and not in the public eye this is just peer reviewed science it is great to see tho.

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree. And what do reasonable people do? They talk, and use facts and logic. The premise of all good science is 'I don't know'. So they try to demonstrate how they think it happens, and are open to scrutiny and demonstrations of more likely theories. It's not a shame to be proven wrong, if your theory is the reason that other people come up with different theories that may or may not be more valid. In fact, you just helped further your common field of interest. And that's the beauty of it.

Prove*

This is how science is supposed to be.

I had thought Steve was right the whole time, but I respected mehdi and could still see his side but was more inclined to Steve's

After the first video I was certain I was right that it was simply the chain construction that caused the rising fountain and no kickback force. After this video I feel partially correct, but got there by accident and sheer luck. The thought process that Steve and Medi followed was much more rigorous than my guess process. I appreciate the entire process they've gone through more than the end result of who is "right."

It's shocking how convinced I was Mehdi was right, and how convinced I am Steve is now. It really makes you question your confidence

@@303elliott wait until Medhi releases the video on a zero G plane

@@303elliott i know right! It really illustrates the importance of having an open mind and allowing change when new evidence is presented.

Good observation...

Nice way of saying you were wrong.

The only kinda drama I care to watch!

It doesn't deserve to be called drama

Debate, not Drama

RU-vid drama but like not cringe

As others have pointed out, at 7:00 with the horizontal chain, he says it "the fountain doesn't grow" when clearly it does grow from the point of acceleration to the arc (equivalent to vertical fountain height) at 7:40 he makes the same claim yet you clearly see it increasing. Also notice at 7:00 the chain rapidly spiraling at the point of acceleration. In almost all videos you see this spiraling yet no one makes mention of it. Think about a football(American) when spun on its side it will stand up and spin. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html

I agree. I wished he show the original ball chain and see if it would grow in height.

Warehouse picker thinking either; A. Seriously obsessed with 1970s style door obstructions. B. Prolific kidnapper. C. Just another day at the office.

that or ali-express

history: chains chains chains long chains long chains silly orangutan picture long chains

In all seriousness though... surprised he hasn't encountered supply"chain" issues with Brexit. . . . ... sorry😞

@@hesperhurt as a former amazon worker, we've seen worse lol

Wasnt that hard to see if you looked carefully, people called that out already in the comments on Mehdis original video, but if you just watch it on the side you get swayed by eloquence more than reason

Perception is everything. You see two things and think they are completely different even though the are not. But if you only ever saw one view you'd think that view is correct by default and think the other view is wrong even though the are the same. This is true for almost all of life. Example. Someone says if a dog barks at nothing there's a ghost.. well they are perceiving that the dogs barking at nothing. Because the dogs senses are magnitudes more sensitive than a person's.. they might have senses something. You as a person go and look and see nothing and think the dogs barking at nothing. If you had the perception of the dog as well that might not be the case. In both cases your seeing the dog bark. They are both the same. But you don't see the other information and there for say it doesn't exist and there's no explanation. Life is chaotic. Another one example is high tensity situations. You can have 3 people in an area witness the same event but have completely different explanations because of their perception. News media uses this as a deception tool for profits. They lie by ommission. If they only wrote " there's nothing there the dog was barking at nothing this proves it" and that's all they focus on the consumer only does as well. They leave out " dogs have highten senses and might have senses something like a mouse or another animal next door or outside the window you can't see or didn't notice". If that's included the consumer now isn't set that the first point is the only truth. Now there nuance. Or they leave out information from an event for whatever reasons. So the perception of the viewer is X happened.. the perception of the people involved say " no all this happened too so maybe it was this" the news viewer perceive the outlet as authoritative so they disregard the witness statement that they sent report as false or un verified. Even though the outlet never verified what they stated. Perception is everything. Example. You see a dude haul off and shoot someone in the head. Immediately you think evil person murdered this guy. Later on it's revealed the person he shot raped and tortured his daughter and got off. Now if you only witnessed it and never got any information your perception is this person just blasted this guy for no reason and you spread that as facts when it's wrong

Or, you know, both can contribute to the same effect, be it additively, multiplicatively, etc. Doesn't have to be just one. The validity of one cause doesn't necessarily invalidate another

Could be wrong, but what if the chain isn’t rising because it doesn’t have to go up to start. Medhi’s hypothesis was that the momentum of the chain going up was creating a force that made the chain rise, but if there is no rising to begin with, how will it rise at all. All the momentum is going horizontally.

@@saltysoyman6908 In all the videos the chain or rope Always Spirals. A spiral has angular momentum ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html

Based comrade

So it seems the antonym for a pissing contest is a chain fountain contest.

Thats why I love this so much

They’re both wrong. In all the videos the chain or rope ALWAYS Spirals. A spiral has angular momentum ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html

It's similar to Veritasium's recent wager with a physicist over the wind-propelled car that could exceed the speed of the wind. Very respectful, everyone learns more than when they started including the one who was right; good stuff.

We do need the gods. But we have one! Veritasium joined

Pbs space time

Pretty sure one of them have released it already

Cody’s Lab and ScienceAsylum joined the fray!

@@TheCosmokramer1 what about V SAUCE everyone forgot about it

This explained the theory of the kickback force for me as well. After that it all clicked into place exactly how this appears to be caused. The wave generated during the stiffer chain unraveling creates a downwards force which flings the chain upwards due to it rebounding off the bottom of the jar, or in the horizontal case rebounding off the pile.

Oh come on, 1) The amount of movement is nothing compared to the motion required to yank the thing out of the pot 2) Once it gets yanked it wants to keep on going, so there has to be some kind of bulge, otherwise there would be an infinite acceleration involved 3) You can't just assume gravity has nothing to do with it.

@@DinoDiniProductions The simulation removed the downward force of gravity in the pot, so what you are seeing is probably a wave of force that would normally push against the rigid surface beneath it. After it leaves the pot gravity is in effect again, and is what is causing the chain to pull out from the pot. So it is not being ignored, and it's effect on acceleration is maintained. The only difference is that the simulation was an attempt to remove any forces originating inside the pot to show that the chain fountain came from those.

@@Caelinus Oh OK, but in any case those small forces are insignificant compared to the huge force that keeps being overlooked: the force applied by the chain vertically, which is automatically present and unavoidable due to the fact that the container has depth.

@@DinoDiniProductions which keeps the chain following through its path - like Medi showed, that force is enough to fight gravity (decaying slightly due to friction). That's "the first half" Steve is talking about. The tiny kickback forces just need to be a tiny bit greater than friction, that causes the "wave" to decay - that slight force pushes it up. Not much, the culmination of all the kickback force, minus the friction forces, only slowly "grows" the fountain. It's not much force - but it's acting on a system near equilibrium. The equilibrium is caused by the much greater force you are talking about - but that's well understood.

you could say they caused a chain reaction

Reminds me of an old joke the punch line was "where is all the chain coming from"

Someone will have to start a chain store to sell these.

You had me in the first half of your comment , not gonna lie...

They're going to have to improve the supply chain.

Or how claimed experiments can't be replicated.

Are they testing theories or hypotheses?

Yes, just like it did in the video, it's due to the rotational forces and inertia. There is much more mass coming from the original container to the spool than is pulling on the spool itself, since the spool is rotating, thereby imparting an angular acceleration on the chain, the conservation of momentum will sling the chain out from the axis of the spool.

@@ruaine83 Might be, I wish to see it though. I'm guessing it might depend on the diameter of the spool too, if it's too wide it might not be "bendy" enough for the chain to peak upwards.

@@Tomapon its anomalous to the shapes sizes and material used. There is a proper diameter and speed that will nullify backlash, but the equation eludes me . E=mc2 but the speed of light being replaced by the relative gravity to its most predominant magnetic or gravitational influence .. here would be what we deem gravity.

And what proves this is it would not happen if the little spheres were magnetic because it would dampen or cancel out the K energy build up in the chain.

@@thundernuts8308 Perhaps the fountain might move to be near the Motorized Spool™ instead of the beaker :o

Perhaps youtube knew when this was set to release, so it recommended the previous one to watch first quickly before this one ;)

thats another way to explain it, the same forces are still present just in a different order, it shows somewhat how a chain preserves its weight. However, I dont think the centripetal force alone would be stronger than gravity in this scenario, partly because gravity is what powers it in the first place, and partly because the experiment on a flat surface doesn't show this behavior. I think its closer that the tension and centripetal forces are canceling each other, and gravity is still uncountered, hence the sinking without the kickback. great idea though!

"The centrifugal force at the top of the fountain is pulling the rising part of the chain higher out of the glass" Centrifugal force is fictional, it does not exist and therefore has no effect. If you want to know why the chain jumps into the air just watch a video of a skateboarder doing an ollie.

In the pot there is also a distance change though

I found your channel when the yt algorithm recommended your bead chain fountain video to me. I stayed there for the other simulations as well, they are really interesting!

@@krampusz Thanks!

Dude, you said exactly what I was going to say, you just said it better, so I'll just agree! Ditto.

Pedagogical. I never knew this word. I had to double check to see if it even existed. I give myself one week to use it in everyday life. Thx! 😂

@The mRNA jab Is the mark of the beast As soon as your Bitcoin payment hits my wallet, the lesson will start.

The scientific method, and also entertainment. That's all you need.

I'm glad I pointed it out to him in his last video. I had been binge watching a lot of those videos a few hours before Steve's last video on this topic came out so the scene was fresh in my mind. HNTH is such a great resource for climbers.

How not to highline is amazing. Don't know how they can afford to break so much stuff!

Yep, excellent channel. Really useful, and pretty fun to watch too. Someone compared it to watching that hydraulic press channel...

Under-rated comment. I wish I could award you like on reddit.

That's a good one.

That also happens at 8:01 in the horizontal dirll pull

Gravity always plays a part. In all the videos the chain or rope Always Spirals. A spiral has angular momentum ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html

@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 Gravity also plays a part when it's switched off...?

@@HenryLoenwind it’s impossible to switch off gravity

@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 wdym? it is possible, either in a well made simulation or more realistically in space where its almost negligible

It would be interesting to use hollow chains that would float on water and try it.

Shouldn't be too hard to do a quick test on some memory foam.

@@martinshoosterman I think they would have to be neutrally buoyant

That would eliminate kickback from the jar. Normally there's also kick back from the chain stacked on top of each other. I wonder how much the foam would dampen that. You could try to space things carefully so the chain doesn't stack. I'd be interested in seeing this because I think the spring effect of the turning radius provides more of the force than the "lever" force of the beads.

@@zunuf Cover the chain itself with something. But all of these change other properties also, not just the kickback force. Like rigidity, friction, etc

@SaltyBrains this was my first reaction to the use of simulations as well, that they are probably not the best for unknown physics problems because they were by definition programmed without an understanding of the mechanics at hand, but in combination with the other evidence I do find it convincing in this case.

LOL so true. As others have pointed out, at 7:00 with the horizontal chain, he says it "the fountain doesn't grow" when clearly it does grow from the point of acceleration to the arc (equivalent to vertical fountain height) at 7:40 he makes the same claim yet you clearly see it increasing. Also notice at 7:00 the chain rapidly spiraling at the point of acceleration. In almost all videos you see this spiraling yet no one makes mention of it. Think about a football(American) when spun on its side it will stand up and spin. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html (read description)

This is very interesting. Indeed I agree, it should be tested with an energy absorbing bottom layer in the container (elastic vs. non-elastic deformation). I too think that this should have an impact if Mould is correct

@@FanaticTentacle so plastic?

@@PBMS123 more like cotton balls

No see the better solution would be a preassure pad at the base of the jar, if the preassure increases steve is correct but i doubt he is

@@SkELAo7 Usually the way the science proves something is right is by proving the other teories are wrong, isn't it?

What's more, through youtube and patreon, it's effectively being funded by the interest of the peers.

It brings together the people that have the energy to try out any experiments and ideas, with the people that can find genuine flaws or weaknesses in just about anything. So you can rapidly get to the strongest possible answers.

Between Mehdi and Lewin a similar approach led to destroying the correct lession and made an old teacher/scientist apologize for something that he never made just to escape alive from the emotional trap Mahdi have set.

Personally I was never convinced by Medhi for the reasons shown in this video: he never actually showed the Mould Effect with loose chain.

You're a hero, Matt, and I applaud you 👏. Well, at least until someone comes up with a better reply lol

@@nathanb011 I was more convinced by everybody else being convinced, but I was still skeptical. I also laughed at Medhi when he said "see? no mould effect!" while it's actively producing the mould effect....

This is truer than it seems for everyone learning about nearly anything. It's why it's important to be skeptical and have critical thinking. To have an open mind, but not so open that your head-jelly falls out.

It's good to recognize that you tend to believe the last person's argument, but you must realize that the community consensus must not convince you as easily all the same

What's also not shown in that test, of the chain going off the edge sideways, is a camera recording the chain from the side. I am more than certain the chain makes a sideways loop, away from the board, that grows in lateral distance, as the chain falls and gains speed. Very bad example, not showing all the angles of the test. That's hiding information.

@@gdxd7956 yes i was thinking that too but didnt mention it. I believe if you showed another angle. You would see the same effect but sideways

7:51

@@shotguntornado I think the reason why the effect is not happening is because the length of one side gets longer and longer. and the drill is stationary. The reason it works on the left is because one side is always longer than the other, therefore more momentum. Another reason this could be happening is the drill is exceeding the force of gravity if it was vertical. The effect works vertically because the only main forces in play are gravity and momentum. if the side inside the cup took longer to get over the lip, then the effect would be smaller or nonexistent. I still believe the effect happens because the momentum of the falling side exceeds the threshold for the other side to slow down and start to fall.

My moment was at 8:00, you can see the stack of beads being pushed downwards

@@craigfjay yep, i made a comment that its backwards wave propagation, essentially the force of the bead chain falling sends small waves backwards along the chain, which without a pot sends the beads below the level of the loops of chain, but with a pot, they cant travel any further down, so the pot exerts a force upwards, giving that wave a bit of energy back into the chain. Ultimately, the force is technically from gravity. Gravity on the chain, gravity on the pot, resistance to gravity, resistance to the backwards wave propagation. The simulations did for me something that a million beads in jars couldnt do, they showed a simplified version that performed according to obvious parameter. i could never actually tell where the force was being introduced before those simulations were shown.

@@craigfjay 8:00 was my initial moment as well, for the overall explanation to fit, but it wasn't until 9:46 that the local mechanics of the phenomenon became apparent.

yes

Yeah I thought when he was holding the pot he would absorb the kick back.

I love a kickback, force

I'm not at all convinced ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-h5bX3arGnf8.html

Yes, around the 8:00 mark you see the stacked beads being pushed down. That convinced me.

@@iamdave84 that part was indeed very convincing. Though I would have loved to see the experiment with the pile at the “bottom”, closer to the spool.

@Timothy Lim it's not just the spaced out pile, it's that in combination with the pile that's *not* spaced out right next to it that makes it convincing. Specifically the part at 7:52

But they ignore the obvious. In ALL the videos the chain or rope ALWAYS Spirals. A spiral has angular momentum ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html

Maybe more like this? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html You have to read the descriptions I don't make good videos but check other vids of fountains too

there is one problem with that. as you lower the beaker, you wouldn't only be removing the bottom of the pot, but also "pulling" the chain down.

That's what I was thinking as well. In the spaced-out example, the top of the beads is going down much faster than it is in the clumped example (or in the actual pot), so you'd need to account for that

@@kriscpg You could perhaps design a cup that rests the chain on a poorly supported paper floor. Something that would not provide a strong restoring force to any "kicks", but that would otherwise hold the chain if it is stationary. I think with a "soft" floor like that you could simulate the lack of beaker floor, but still support the chain for the experiment without imparting any additional velocity to the chain.

@@meateaw even better. Calculate out how much force is being imparted to raise the chain on the floor and build the support just to support the weight. Then if there is the kickback force it should break through the paper. Although this would actually probably pretty hard to engineer accounting for all factors

Yes I was nearly convinced then I noticed the "fountain" always decayed, (the floor one never goes "up", and he imparted the chain one with his initial movements). The hoover hose was interesting though.

Really? Sounds lame. No pics--it didn't happen.

@@noahway13 you can go see my comment on Medhi's video if you don't believe me lol

@@isaacjackiw9711 Didn't check, but I believe you. Your reply was to nice to troll you.

Yes that

72

Absolutely. we need a lot more judges. a high speed camera to prove/disprove my theory. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lo3Sltktifo.html (you have to read the descriptions in the videos)

@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 oh banter! I love it!

@@PongoDaMan but is it really banter if only you and I hear it? While thousands are convinced by this "Proof". I know Atomic Shrimp saw it, but he prefers Steve's "Proof" video because of the rigorous scientific methods he used (hand held drill, denying that it rises at 7:00, rock solid simulations) confirmation bias is a bitch these days. This is not science!

However by having a fountain, mass would be leaving the pot, thus slowing it down, which would have a more pronounced effect than the kick back described. Right?

@@haydenhagemeier4458 the mass leaving the pot should have no effect, I think, as the object will accelerate downwards the same regardless of the weight. If it falls faster than 9.8m/s², it will be due to the additional downward force created by the tension in the chain. What will likely happen though is that once the pot is dropped, the whole assembly will almost immediately be in freefall, which is indistinguishable from a weightless state. It will all fall together and appear motionless relative to each other (chain versus fountain versus pot). Interesting question, and I'd like to see the results of trying it out..

@@donalbaine awesome thanks for explaining👍

The fountain would collapse rapidly as the pot accelerate, but I think with a high speed camera we could measure the initial acceleration of the pot. That is a tremendous idea, I was thinking about using scales, but the bead leaving the pot really complicated thing. With your idea the mass of the beads in the pot is irrelevant, since they are free falling and are not applying force on their own.

@@donalbaine Yes it would require a high speed camera and the important information we are looking for would be in the initial second or two. The idea was to remove as many variables as possible such that we are left with the usable data we need to answer the question.

He explained in a previous video that doing that is very difficult because the mass of the chain in the pot is constantly changing.

@@DrSuperKamiGuru can we setup differential equations?

@@TamedRome This problem has already been solved, the solution is in a paper linked in Steve's first video on this "dispute"

@Jun Yan Yap just because it’s a paper doesn’t mean it’s correct.

@@KP3droflxp Yes, but in my humble opinion what’s published there, or at least their key conclusions, are correct.

I want to see waves in an extra dimension in space - you only get a Y wave on earth but imagine the wave going on the X as well, like a spiral! And yes, the "pull rope and observe feedback" is delicious, even more so as a child. MAGICAL

I loved it too, my friends and I would have battles where you each hold one side of the rope and take turns sending waves at each other. Because sending waves at the same time just cancelled each other.

And then you discover the mechanics of a whip, with decreasing thickness

Have you seen the chain whips they use as tourist attractions in China. There are videos on RU-vid une of them. They get the chain to break the speed of sound using simple conservation of momentum.

Exactly. All Mehdi showed was (as stated here) that the chain will follow the existing chain's path and curvature. He never showed it increasing in "height", if anything is was always decreasing.

Dude that is so fucking cool how that works. Mind blown

If there is a lever action effect created by the tiny balls, it could be measured by a calibrated scale / along with an accumulator to get a mass effect. I doubt there's a fraction of a gram produced, and even if so, the overall effect would be negligible. There's not much going on when 'next ball' is yanked from it's stationary position, that change of state is practically instantaneous.