I post a seven line technical explanation as to why I believe TF isn't quite right with zero upvotes after one day, you post a nice half line comment a few yours ago with already 100 votes. How do I get started in safely electrocuting myself?
@@BarriosGroupie I posted a 40 line explanation attributing it to electrostatic induction instead of polarization and thus basically supporting Veritasium's point of view (I put quite some time into it, and I have a physics PhD), and got 1 upvote. Some people are famous, an even a simple smiley would naturally give them lots of attention. Also the famous ones are at the top. Your comment - I couldn't even find it even after scrolling down a lot. I'd hoped for a more substantial comment from ElectroBOOM, but a good answer needs time. Also ElectroBOOM finds the test setup nice - and I agree, nice experiments. I just don't agree with Thunderf00t's conclusions, and about those Mehdi doesn't say anything. Yet. Maybe he'll make a video about that. I'd like that...
@@pluto8404 What do you mean god forbid they question them? They have, and they will continue to. ANY good scientist will question any new vaccine, big pharma or not. The data is presented, which answers the questions. When the data shows the efficacy, then they are accepted. When it doesn't, they are rejected. To bloviate about ANY vaccine being accepted without question is absurd.
This is 2022. Scientific doesn't mean testable, reproducible and falsifiable anymore. It just means clickable. Which is why Varitasium wins in this game, where style trumps substance. That's not to say Veritasium isn't scientific. It's just pop-science, which doesn't really have to predict anything other than unique views. Thunderf00t gets tedious because he repeats himself and goes over the same point from many angles, which is indeed more scientific but sadly and inevitably less popular. Pretty soon he will be the only one left posting videos longer than 30 seconds. Make way for Science.
Awesome! This video would have been even better if you wore the Victorian era attire and had a pipe. Victorian era hoodie just doesn't have the same weight to it.
You can really see how excited he is too actually disprove something substantial, that is not complete bs like "unlimited energy battery" or "food from co2 out of thin air".
This is probably your 'nicest' response video. You didn't rip him a new one, you stuck to your knowledge, experience, and focused on the science. Great work.
I believe it was due to respect for vertasium, real scientists want to know why, even if it disproves their theory, they will accept true experiment results
Veritasium wasn't trying to sell snake oil, he just got some details wrong, so no need to get snarky with him. But when Tf00t is taking down charlatans, I'm happy to see him get mean.
I think it's because I think Phil doesn't think Derrick is stupid, he's just wrong. Derrick and veritaseum are incredibly good, with only a handful of duff videos. And of all the veritaseum debunking videos I've seen of late, this is one where I don't want to smack the smug debunker around the face.
well thats because unlike most other videos getting busted here Vertasium wants to get fact checked and is happy if a controversial take fuels a discussion that benefits everyone in the end.
@@TubeMeisterJC That is what science should be about. Healthy scepticism toward each other's explanation but with utter respect toward their work. We will have much easier time to succeed together to figure out nature.
I rly enjoyed the more relaxed approach on this video. Then again the guy doesn't try to scam people with shitty products, so the regular busted vibe wouldnt have felt right
I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
@@tonywilson4713 The Veritasium channel is prone to being the YT version of those "science factz" claims that circulated from time to time, even before the internet, which tried to explain something was ACTUALLLY SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT!!!! Which tried to be technically correct, and sounded they could be plausible, but in the end weren't practically true. An example is "fact" about the coriolis effect for example, which has real impact on a global level, but no measurable impact in the direction water spins in your toilet bowl as those "SIENZE FACS" always claim, or the one that claims MAGENTA DOESN'T EXIST which is just plain lack understanding of how colors work, as it isn't just that pure wavelengths are the only possible things to create the perception of color. But don't get me wrong, those "technically could be correct" but actually are utterly stupid claims are still utterly stupid and actually just plain old misinformation.
@@tonywilson4713 There may very well be some folks who support one or the other, who happen to be Against those who support the opposing party for some reason... However I don't think it's really necessary to go on some sort of defensive-spree here. Derrick is pretty great, and Phil is generally a pretty decent person as well. And most of us, as far as I'm aware, are just Science Enthusiasts who've learned from Both of them. Phil classifies this as a "Busted" vid simply because that's what it still was in principle, a simple "You're wrong about _blank_, and here's why". He did point out how Derrick was partly correct too, but the point was that he was also wrong, and Phil wasn't snubbing him or being smug about it.
Always good to see you actually running the tests and explaining what's going on and why. Actual science might not seem that exciting to most, but it'll sure teach you a lot more than just showing off a cool trick and stating a believed reason for it that you haven't actually tested.
That was my wonder. I watched a single Ve video and this got recommended. Upon a review all I could think was, "why is that one antifeminist guy "debunking" a video from like a decade ago?"
@EgonFreeman kay? The dude was weirdly obsessed with Anita Sarkessian for a not-antifeminist. And irrespective of all of that, it's still strange that he's put this much work into covering a nearly decade-old video he appears to have already done eight years ago.
@Josh_728 my man, that statement says far more about the lazy hacks who built a career crying over Sarkessian than it does about her. And that you think "shadowbanning" in RU-vid comments is a thing says more about what you do on the internet than anything else.
@@Josh_728 oh no! XD I missed your little tirade earlier. My man, the YT comment algorithm truncates ALL replies to the top ten or so MINUS those that are automatically flagged as more likely to be "inappropriate or violate terms of service." Further, the video's publisher can change those settings whenever they like. Say less sussy shit, or get sempai to notice you. This isn't "shadowbanning," its a skill issue. Get better at the internet if you want to say sussy shit or skirt ToS.
@@matthewwilliams9200 IDIOLOGY as in IDIOTOLOGY? I don't know if that was supposed to be a known mistake or not, but it sure makes a new term to define the unquestionable, untestable, undeniable "science" forced in the faces of everyone these days than the simple overused "ideology". Although spiritual religion itself has caused more than enough death, destruction and the lack of progression in true science over the years anyway too.
FORGET IT. TINDER FOOT HAS BECOME A DOUCHE WHO JUST BITCHES AND MOANS ABOUT ELON. TODAY HES GOT MENSTRAL CRAMPS AND IS GOING AFTER VERITASIUM. MUST HAVE LOST EMPLOYMENT, WHO TAKES THIS CLOWN SERIOUS.
When I was doing Nuffield Physics at school (about 45 years ago), the teacher set us a challenge to find something that was attracted by positive and negative charges. We were meant to fail, but I found the water stream from the tap was attracted independently of the charge. The teacher told me rather gruffly that it didn't count. So much for scientific method !
@@alcoholfree6381 Science is very different from religion. A scientist can hold beliefs, but unlike religion these beliefs are constantly tested, and open to revision when observations are in conflict with beliefs.
@plank3543 Obviously, you can go back and claim nothing as counting as provable reality, but thats not sensible. Yes you need to make a cut somewhere, but doing that at a logical point and using reason to work from there is what makes the scientific method superior in comparison to people accepting magic as an answer to feel giddy and justified instead if working their mind out a bit. There is no real discussion with equally worthwhile sides of an argument here.
my chemistry teacher got really mad back in the day about the claim that it wasn't because of water's polarization, demonstrated it with the purified water from the lab tap and graced the classroom with a 15min rant about false chemistry facts from the web😂
I think its fantastic when teachers take content from the internet an integrate it into the lessons. That way you can spark the interest of pupils more easily. In Germany most teachers don't even know the internet exists. :D
@@FalkFlak haha, fun fact: deutscher lehrer kommt halt auf die lehrkraft an, he probably had enough of people saying he's wrong because this or that video
its called "arrogance". Phil is everything wrong with society. Paid by musk to make anti-musk videos to boost car sales. Hides real truth just like all "scientists". Phil is human
Good video. On a side note, this made me realize how "informative enternainment" like Veritasium is easy to forgive some hand-waving and misconceptions because of how it's presented, whereas in a debunking video I take a much more critical and skeptical approach, doubting each claim and demanding proof. This was interesting, thank you.
we subconsciusly think that the information we get from "informative enternainment" is true, because they are "teaching" us new things, we assume they know something we don't, but when you look at a debunking videos the point of view is shifted, you "know" or at least now have doubt that what they are teaching you is false, you now assume that they don't know either
@@andreasbjerreovergaard4641 I think you mean "edutainment", like Beakman's World, it was coined in the '50s by Walt Disney... "Infotainment" is like Buzzfeed or Oprah...
Finally someone address this. For me the worst part of Derek explanation is that is not an explanation at all, he said that the polar nature of water molecules is not responsible of this effect but never explain why not. The usual explanation is a combined response of polar molecules (and water is relatively intense with a electric permittivity around 80) and disolved ions, and of course, why he did not test his hypothesis with ultra pure water? Thanks for your contribution.
Why Derek didn't test? You can not. Water is fundamentally present both in molecular (predominant by like 10 odd orders of magnitude) and in ionic (H3O+ and OH-) form, even if all you have to start with is chemically pure water. It keeps spontaneously dissociating and recombining, existing in equilibrium state. Though i do think Derek's postulate was scandalous. And negative ions go where? Why them in particular, why there? Why charged cup+water stream experiment also works with a HDPE bottle as a source? If you keep removing water from the bottle, when is the remaining negative enough that this just cannot keep happening? Well it doesn't seem to. And when you have filled up a cup of water, from your tap, it is electropositive? Well doesn't seem so either. Shite craftsmanship from him.
@@SianaGearz are you saying that dionized water doesn't exist? or rather that dionized water would not be significantly dionized to count? I am having a bit of trouble understanding your comment
If I understand your question right, I think it has to do with water being very slightly magnetic. All elements are magnetic, and ones we know on earth as being magnetic are the strongest magnetic examples. Iron, nickel, and cobalt are very magnetic. Because magnetism aligns electrons up in a dipole, charging ions will make this a confusing experiment because you have 2 charges constantly fighting for dominance. Because other forces such as gravity are at play the water emulates buoyancy with its charge, aligning like a magnet. The item inducing a charge will always try to create equilibrium in a changing environment (rather the particles within).
@@SianaGearz But in pure water, the concentration of H+ and OH- ions is about 1E-7 mol/L, very low indeed. In contrast, hard water would have a concentration of calcium carbonate of over 1.2E-3 mol/L, i.e. 4 orders of magnitude higher, and the charge on each ion is twice those of H+ or OH-. So a test comparing hard water with deionised water would easily be able to show if there was a difference due to the concentration of ions present.
That spark gets under my skin every time, Good to see your face once in a while, love how you got so pissed about this being wrong that you had to get in front of the camera and demonstrate. this Experiment was beyond cool! I spotted that Wimshurst machine, I have one just like it! freakin loved seeing this experiment!!
@@TheCrimier it will wake you up that's for sure, other than that not too much, I have been shocked a few times, it's very high voltage but very low amperage.
Normally Im a silent viewer, but I have to comment on this video. This video is very well structured: from hypothesis -> explaining basic, but important stuff -> explaining experiment results -> conclusion I indeed enjoyed every second of the video. Keep it up with the great work, Thunder!
Another positive is that an average person could replicate several of these experiments for a rather low monetary investment. Avoid the experiments that aren't using just water unless you are already familiar with the hazards of these chemicals and are equipped to handle them safely. For example, acetonitrile produces cyanide when inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ignited (it ignites very easily).
My first thought when watching the Veritasium video was "there shouldn't be enough ion separation to bend the stream." Certainly there is some ionic charge separation. You can exploit that fact to make a spark generator from dripping water. However, unless you were running a rigged setup, ion separation by itself couldn't be the only mechanism for the amount of deflection we saw.
You'd expect that the drop spark generator would also be more effective if you bent the stream first too. Another easy to test thing by the time between sparks
That was a **very** interesting experiment, demonstration and a good laboratory protocol without being too pretentious (some scientists seem to like to be as hermetic as possible) . Beside the fact you are busting a star of YT, alone this could be used to teach how to do science at school, better, in the society in general. Thank you very much. There are not enough videos like these on youtube, sadly.
The thing is that real scientists do get things wrong. Any real scientist will admit it, some a lot more easily than others.. Even Einstein sometimes got things wrong...
I don't know what you are aiming at with regards to being "hermetic", but proper protective gear and safety measures are a foundation of every scientist and there is good reason for that. TF unfortunately failed this with his handling of the solvents. Example: DCM (dichloromethane) as used here is not only low-boiling and highly flammable, it evaporates insanely fast and, like all halogenated solvents, is thought to cause cancer. Not something you want in your lungs. Same goes for chloroform and tetrahydrofurane. n-hexane isn't harmless either and can cause damage to organs. But I agree with the rest of your comment. Good stuff from TF!
@@Kujo174 you are right. My chemistry classes were several years ago now. I forgot about security. Indeed, TF should lead by the example. But for the hermetic part, there is a trend at the university level, in research especially, to speak complicated to say things that anyone could understand with an introduction to the matter. I have a grade myself, I hated this gibberish. It's human anxiety at its best.
I really would Ike to see more of the other RU-vid Scientist BUSTED videos, it would be a great thing to have “peer reviewed” science videos as we continue to learn from and about the universe!
That's the thing, they are popular youtube scientists because they are good at what they do. Major errors like this are probably rare. And alpha phoenix already did a video on how long it takes to light up a lightbulb.
I think that's mostly because Veritasium isn't a scummy con-man trying to bilk dollars out of the gullible. Derek just said something that TF thought was wrong and so set out to find the answer.
I dislike Elon as much as anyone over here, but it was nice to have a video that wasn't 15 extra minutes of news, interviews and showcases where Elon is overpromising something.
Very nice demonstration. I liked especially the isolated water in the tiny tube. No charge escape possible, showing that only the molecular dipole counts. One might even think of a measurement method to determine the dipole of molecules in the dipole state.
I think Derek at Veritassium often works "backwards", he wants to demonstrate some principle in physics, and thinks up an experiment to do so. But that's a dangerous thing to do because you start out with big bias, on what do you *want* the experiment to do, and you blind yourself for other explanations.
It reminds me on how Jan Hendrik Schön got away with his fraud for a long time. By figuring out the results he wanted and then faking the results to match it.
@@LordZordid Here though the results are correct, just the explanation is wrong. Most likely because Derek isn't really an expert at an of this, he just likes to show people cool stuff, and often gets the details wrong. Still, he wasn't _completely_ wrong, the effect he described _does_ happen, its just that the deflection of the stream is due to a different effect. Still, he should've been more diligent with his research into that video.
@@EvanOfTheDarkness honestly if he just didn't approach his explanations with such a cocky aura of complete authority and certainty it wouldn't be as much of an issue
@@xxportalxx. I agree on that, I think one should have a really solid understanding of something, before trying to explain it in a simplified manner (lest you risk making a fool of yourself).
I remember watching Veritasiums video on this and being somewhat baffled, because I had actually observed this bending effect with acetone in the lab before and afaik there aren't a lot of ions floating around in acetone. This provides quite a lot more insight into the phenomenon.
The effect is down to the movement of electrons which are far lighter than any ions/molecules, noting that the electrical conductivity of copper is only x 200 that of acetone. So I don't think Thunderf00t is right in saying the effect is down to the movement of polar molecules, nor is Veritasium when claiming it's down to movement of ions. It's just basic, classical electrostatics where the internal electric field inside any conductor is maintained at exactly zero for applied external static electric fields, giving rise to a varying surface electron charge density on the liquid.
@@BarriosGroupie Movement of which electrons (in acetone _or_ in water)? Obviously a polar molecule is such because of the movement of electrons (which are statistically more likely to be close to the more electronegative atoms in the molecule), but water or acetone have no free electrons.
@@dlevi67 Movement of electrons in both, which is related to how easily electrons can be exchanged between adjacent molecules and hence contribute to the overall electrical conductivity of the liquid. The electrical conductivity of Hexane is 1x10-5 ps/m, Acetone 2x10+7 ps/m, pure-water 5x10+3 ps/m, copper 5x10+7 ps/m; which matches TF's observation that Acetone and pure-water were effected but not Hexane with its relatively poor electrical conductivity by at least 8 orders of magnitude. Interestingly, I'd expect Hexane to eventually start bending if TF waited long enough, which is related its charge dissipation time constant of ~100 seconds.
@@BarriosGroupie Except that both dichlomethane and THF are not particularly conductive... yet they "move" (if Galileo pardons my borrowing of his words).
As a physicist, Veritasium's video also really bothered me when I first watched it. I watched your first video on it years ago, and I thought you made good arguments. This one is just beautiful. Thank you for sharing your carefully and thoughtfully laid out experiments!
It's surprising that a well-informed guy like Thundef00t can be correct here (as best I can tell), but still chooses to be so incredibly intellectually dishonest when it comes to his SpaceX coverage.
@@shazmosushi tbh, Thunderf00t has made claims in other video's which were sometimes just wrong. i really agree with criticism on Veritassium, but maybe both these guys are a bit in the same category.
@@shazmosushi Could you explain what claims he made that are intellectually dishonest? Anything specifically you care to refute? Or are you just going to make vague claims? Please, I would love to hear your well thought out explanation about his intellectual dishonesty. Make claim with no proof, Elon would be proud of you!
@@shazmosushi This guy just has a personal vendetta against anything Musk related that takes precedence over any of his scientific aspirations every time it comes up. Its cringy and one of the reasons I only accidentally stumble upon this channel anymore instead of by habit.
I've been subscribed to your channel for over 6 years and this has got to be one of the most satisfying videos you've ever made. Thank you Thunderf00t!
It's a peer review in video form! This is the thunderfoot content I subscribe for. Pure science and scientific method, so that anyone can perform and/or test. This is the exact kind of discussion that advances human knowledge. While making a "busted" video on veritasium seems harsh and like lumping I'm in with the frauds, anyone who watches this video can see that it's not disrespectful at all.
It doesn't actually ever happen that peer review includes a reproduction or refuting experiments. This video took him several years of latent preparation, because he didn't have the tools at hand, and if he did, it would still take a while to collect the thoughts and congeal them into a conclusive experimental setup. Reviews are often done after work in like an hour to weed out the large pile of obvious horse shit that gets submitted to magazines. Generally toilet papers smell, they aren't clear in formulating the premise, they make obvious mathematical mistakes, they miss or misrepresent necessary prior work, their experimental setup isn't fit to prove what they are trying to prove, p-hacking, p-ignorance, deviation being swept under the rug, experimental results do not support the conclusion and so on. As such Derek's original video isn't even fit to be a toilet paper based on basic formal criteria, because he just postulates that something is true without even attempting to prove it.
Er.. This video was not an example of the scientific method nor the peer review system. If this video were sent to a journal for publication, it wouldn't even make it past the front door -- something I'm sure Thunderf00t, as a scientist, knows well. Don't get me wrong, I love this video and love seeing a scientist contribute to a discussion in which he is moderately experienced in, but don't mistake the scientific process as a simple one. This video was 30 minutes long; oftentimes it takes more than 30 minutes for a scientist to even begin to understand what is written in a scientific paper in their field.
@@TheRealBoof woot? How is this not how the scientific method works? He showed various hypotheses, set up indicator and rules and showed what "model output" should be expected for which hypothesis and input. that is how scientific modelling and testing hypothesis works. Also, just because this video is 30 minutes long does not mean it took 30 minutes to do. It rather looks like it took hours upon hours of preparation and postprocessing. Sure, it would probably not make it into a paper because everything said is already common knowledge but hypothetically seeing veritassium's vid as a "submission" then thunderf00ts vid would be one of the most elaborate peer reviews i have ever seen
@@TheRealBoof This video is the equivalent of writing down your findings of seven years in a 30-page paper. It only does not count as peer review, because there is not scientific journal that accepts videos (yet?). But maybe he could write a paper on this, with the necessary form and calculations, and send it in.
Wow this was amazing! I was a little worried as I remembered the original busted video being somewhat abrasive (or as we would call it in Finland "a cock measuring contest"). You very thoroughly demonstrate that the dipolar nature of the liquid is mostly responsible for the attraction. I already suspected as much as I do this experiment with high school students using both polar and non polar solvents, and so I couldn't fully accept Dereks explanation as he didn't include non polar solvents in his model. Coincidentally we had also noticed that there was not much difference between different polar solvents, maybe with 1-pentanol we only had a slight bending of the stream, if memory serves me correctly. But in my opinion your experiments with charging the stream puts this finally to the bed! Unless this turns to another multi part youtube science "feud". Looking forward to Veritasiums response.
I was happy to see that he dropped his usually highly sarcastic tone for this video. I didn't mind his tone when he was debunking people who lie on purpose to sell shitty products to gullible people but I sure would have been turned of if he kept it for this one. Veritasium is explaining (or trying to explain) scientific phenomenon and just like any other scientists, he can make mistakes, misinterpret results or have biased results due to confusion factors and this is exactly why peer reviews is one of the fundamentals of science. Thunderfoot acted like how any scientific would (or at least, should) do. He reproduced the experiment and pointed out the flaws in Veritasium's own experiment.
I love Veritasium and I’ve been subscribed to him for as long as I can remember but you were my first ever subscriber and have watched every single video since the very beginning 2007ish and when this video popped up on my screen boy did my ears prick. You are by far my favourite RU-vidr and one of the greatest scientific minds out there. The world needs more people like you Thunderf00t
Here's what's cool about this. This is science. He's not busting pseudoscience. He's busting someone who accepts the scientific method and understands how it works. Which is why I'll bet dollars to donuts Veritasium is going to accept it. He's going to say "Yep. Can't argue with the science." and admit his mistake. That's how science works and it's beautiful. A pseudoscientist would never admit defeat. But a scientist must.
This has one major experimental diffrence as Veritasium had an earthed metal tap which change the fluid to have an induced change, Phil did not test this. :(
If he doesn't accept it, he should change his name to something like Egomanium. But i know he will, he is one of the few RU-vidrs that actually have big brain energy
"busting someone who accepts the scientific method and understands how it works. " Maybe some vague idea! They think science is googling the first answer!🤦♂️🤣 But they dont practice real science and they are really dumb!
Seeing you evolve on this site over the years has been remarkable. Your dedication to science and scientific literacy is commendable and I look forward to what you help bring to the future.
Dude, thunderfoot is awesome! This slowly growing community is a staple of fun, educational and provocative content. (In a really minor note, I recommend some humility cause being right so many times, might make one believe he is immune to error, so, just, don't forget that and recognise when you ever make a mistake and this should be a perfect science Chanel/community. Rock on, Thunderfoot!) Edit: and just as I post my comment, Thunderfoot dies from stupidity!!? Heuaheuaheuhauehwuhwuwu priceless! Please! Safety first!
Actually Derek Muller (Veratasium) has a BA in Applied Science from Queens University in Ontario. So unlike many Science Communicators he actually does at least have a technical qualification. I wouldn't call this a busted video because he keeps pointing out where the Veritasium video was right. Its more like he's a more comprehensive explanation of what's going on with electrostatics and various fluids.
@@maidhall1699 He has a Ph.D. in Physics Education Research from the University of Sydney, he didn't just stop at the BA. Not sure why the previous commenter refrained from mentioning that. He's literally written a thesis on how to improve the way we explain science to the public
Nah, it's got more to do with the content creation style of both channels. And don't get me wrong, Derek wouldn't be half as good as thunderf00t in his own game, but he's a capable guy.
For me it's also like, veritasium did A wrong, not that veritasium is THE wrong... if that makes sense. Nothing wrong in being wrong, as long as you're willing to admit it and correct yourself. It's when you're always wrong because your very premise is wrong, that's when there's a serious problem.
You really give me the vibe of the really cool village weirdo in a story that is actually a scientist but nobody know it because *fantasy* or something and actually ends up being integral to the hero learning something that helps them defeat the big bad evil guy. And I think that's pretty cool :) Thanks for the video, info and entertainment!
This is why I love this channel. As a fellow nuclear technician now software engineer. I agree you need to be in dark lighting and have a bond villain mood theme set in order to debunk these claims. 10 out of 10. LETS DO AN EXPERIMENT.
I imagine veritasium will respond to this video much better than the frivolous lawsuits and threats that most of the busted videos subjects usually respond with.
I doubt it. The last veritasium video i watched was of him arrogantly quizzing normal people on the street, with advanced science questions that most people would never have known without specifically studying them, just so he could show off that he was the smartest guy there. I've avoided that prick's channel ever since.
What I really want to see now is Veritasium explaining how he came to make a video asserting falsity, and what he's done to correct his process. That would be an excellent outcome.
I have said this on a couple of Veritasium's videos - he has a good presentation with high production value, but often it seems he draws the wrong conclusion or leaves out information. Which is a bad (but unfortunately common) thing for a science communicator to do. Criticism and communication improves both sides of an issue, which is why it’s such a shame that RU-vid suppresses both subjects and discussion on certain topics, and of certain types. I wish that all science could have as free interplay as this, and even drama channels or Internet Blood Sports - because even if there isn’t much positive takeaway from the events themselves (bar the entertainment), it shows people outside the scope of conflict how petty and small-minded it is to get involved in those kinds of fights
Yeah. I'm no scientist, but I can fact check and Kyle Hill, a science communicator I follow, has confidently given completely bogus answers to physics questions. For example, every time I see someone ask him how the universe can be ~13bn years old but ~90bn light years across, he never mentions that space itself expands faster than light. He's even said that the observable universe is ~13bn light years across and that the larger figure is the unobservable universe, which doesn't even make sense: how would we know? How would the information reach us if light hasn't reached us? (Which, I assume, is why the actual size of the universe is unknown.) I get that no one can be correct all the time, but I wish science communicators, more than anyone, paid attention and addressed their past mistakes, because _confidently_ giving wildly inaccurate answers is the opposite of what any teacher should do.
@@AlkisGD One thing I miss on RU-vid are Annotations, which allowed users to throw in revisions to their video ex post facto where you can't miss it... But without them, maybe the video producer acknowledged their error and added in a revision in the comments or the description... but those aren't so easily recognized or even noticed. I wish there was a way to revise a mistake in a video after having uploaded it.
@@AlkisGD which is why Tf00t is great - he's a science communicator who is an actual scientist as well, which means that he really knows what he's talking about almost all the time. Science communication is very important, so it's extra sad when popular ones get things wrong. Especially when to someone who doesn't know that it's wrong, it will seem plausibly correct and they won't think to fact check it, and only someone who already knows what the correct fact/interpretation/mechanism/we is, will catch the error.
Being slick and confident is usually the communication trait of a business person rather than a scientist… which is usually full of caveats, limitations and clarifying assumptions…
@@nickfifteen - These days RU-vid allows you to edit the video itself. Kyle probably hasn't noticed the corrections yet, otherwise I'd like to think he'd have edited the videos. After all, he regularly edits/removes/censors sections that contain offensive troll spam in the chat, so he doesn't just abandon stream VODs.
Well done! I actually did a similar experiment in 1978. I have a very old antique Wimshurst generator that I repaired (I found it in the trash). I made an electroscope out of aluminum foil, paper clip, and an old coffee jar. Gold leaf spectroscopes are far too delicate. An aluminum electroscope can be easily fixed if the strips separate too violently. Veritasium videos quite often annoy me.
re - 3:05 As a chemist, I would ALSO have been suspect upon hearing Derrick's explanation here. The presence of OH- and H+ ions in water is represented by the dissociation constant of water and is so vanishingly small that it lacks the power to affect such large volumes of water. From memory, the value is 1x10e-14 Even if those droplets are 1/10th of a CC of water each, there still aren't enough H+ or OH- ions to be able to move the greater mass of neutral/ non-dissociated H2O molecules. But that's what happens when you ask a non-chemist to try to peer into the mysteries of the universe. They invariably get it wrong...
I thought he was talking about water softening minerals. Either way the point still stands. Theres actually a lot off, things in the vertasium archive.
@@nunyabisnass1141 At first, that's what I thought, too (actually, I was thinking about water hardening minerals, specifically group II metals). But then he specifically referenced hydroxide ions and protons. And the thing about these specific ions is that they are constant. So they aren't only present in water droplets, they are present in any volume of water. and always in the same concentration. So if Derrick's explanation were correct, then the dissociation constant of water would have provided enough ions so that the ionic attraction present in a glass of water would cause it to be attracted to a magnet; Any glass of water would always behave as a ferromagnetic fluid.
There are 10^-7 moles per liter of H+, and thr same amount of OH-, in a water of pH 7. But even if you had a crazy high concentration of ions, say 1 mole per liter of Ca2+ (rock hard water haha) it'd still be 1 mole of Ca2+ vs 55 moles of water and that alone should raise an eyebrow regarding veritasiums explanation.
Check the conductivity of distilled, bi-distilled, tri-distilled water - very low, but still enough for the minuscule charges that need to be moved around. But that's what happens when a non-physicist tries to peer into the mysteries of high-voltage physics.
I have followed Thunderf00t for more than a decade. Through ups and downs, always admiring his excitement and scientific rigor. Every once in a while - as was the case today - I am also reminded that in part my fascination is also due to the fact that he has a massively massive neck-to-head ratio.
As a kid in the 60s, I would watch and try these experiments, and I believed the teachers were telling the truth about the results. When I did the same experiments at home, I did not use the water tap, but a glass bottle, rubber cork and vinyl tubing, which ruled out the incorrect results mentioned by Veritasium. I was even able to get a gold leaf electroscope from a garage sale, that allowed me to check the state of charge and even polarity of charge, once I was able to create charges. But I never knew that by rubbing objects in my hair, I was creating a grease covered, charge carrying object! If only I knew about the Wimshurst machine, I could have had even more fun with static electricity!! The cool thing I was able to do, was to create an entire bank of Leyden jars, which held a very high potential charge that I had to warn people not to touch any part of it, or they would get knocked on the floor! And to think, some people didn't like me! I guess having to get up off the floor after touching the mason jars covered in aluminum foil and filled with water knocked them on their asses pissed them off!
@@adrycough I mean a gold leaf electroscope is like Victorian era technology. It’s basically just a neat little gizmo in current times. Sure you CAN find something to use it for, like in this video. But generally speaking it’s just novelty for most people.
That was awesome. Getting to understand the actual process, a step by step way to demonstrate the claims and then attempt to disprove them. All of it a TON of work you put up for us, and we're all very much grateful for it.
I didn't bought the Veritasium concept either as it was during my higher chemistry course when I saw it for a first time and being fresh to the idea of polar molecule I thought that something was wrong - could I explain it back then - NO CHANCE! - thanks a million Thunderf00t for another journey into chemistry and physics and another "now I know" sensation. By the way, Google for some reason finally recognises Thunderf00t and the first page is covered with your channel, twitter and even Wikipedia page about you Phil. I'd like to know why google changed its attitude towards you and why on earth it took them so freaking long. All the best Phil!
@Darren Dupre . Can't say no to the woke... they cry and stamp their feet and tell you how offended they are.. but your not allowed to tell them how many fuks you give
@@dmdx86 There's probably truth to that. "people" like Stark skeezian attract the kind of "people" who will report anyone who doesn't agree with their twisted sensibilities and as we know, mass reporting can force changes to the machine learning algorithm. I guess we may have finally observed the threshold of their attention span?
More than likely after his research was featured on the front page of the Science journal Google would just look anti-science if they kept censoring him.
I love these Victorian era type corrections, I just imagine you with all of us in an auditorium with the experiment being carried out, doing the little call out on Veritasium and then with all of us wearing wigs and such and applauding at the spectacle.
Thunderf00t at the start of the video: Years before I didn't have the resources, but now I'm going in with a better kit! Thunderf00t 5 minutes into the video: Well, most of these tools are Victorian Era. :D
@Jason Tan it’s not that it’s expensive per se it’s that getting the plutonium needed to produce 2.42 gigawatts of power, so that you can retrieve authentic Victorian era equipment requires convincing governments that the overall procedure has merit.
This is probably one of my favorite video's you've ever made, it's informative, educational and entertaining. Seeing experiments done live is so much more awe inspiring than reading about them on paper.
Veritasium is always smiling like he is selling a second hand car to you. Yes, the car was owned by an old lady that only used the car on Sundays to go to Church. Yes, there is a genuine trustworthy smile that has to give you some confidence. Problem is, I've seen that smile before.
This man is a nuclear physicist. I can't expect less. His work is a devotion to science. This individual stands for science. I have deep respect for his work and the work of scientists who devoted their ENTIRE life in search for the truth.
@@kummer45 nuclear physicist who got published in Nature for his work in chemistry (twice!), no less. I think his PhD is in chemistry? But he knows (and does) stuff in a lot of fields, sort of like a polymath lol. Which is extra cool in my eyes, because I'm also a chemist with a deep interest in quantum physics and such, altho definitely not on the same level.
As a Windturbine technician i can tell you the discarge is scary stuff. Example when we work on the grounding system to the blades, forexample replacing the grounding cable from a blade, there is usually a discharge every 5-8 seconds, and the gab is usually around 10cm, even though i know it's coming it gives me a shock (like in surprised) :D I guess the static builds up in the fiberglass blades by wind blowing over them, and it works as a capacitor or inductor.. and when refitting the new cable we have a safety procedure and Electric HV PPE because well.. safety :D Fun stuff.
@@snorman1911 Isn't that exactly the point of an educator? Teaching is by definition showing you something you didn't know, and "for clicks" is a petty way of saying "to as broad an audience as possible" and also "not for free".
@@peetiegonzalez1845 I think the point of an educator is to help you learn, not to impress you that they know something you don't. Not saying Veritasium makes bad content but I kind of see what they mean
It's amazing how interesting mundane things are up close! Makes you think wether watching the paint dry is as boring as they say or you just don't know enough about the process to make it fascinating lol
I enjoyed your discussion of dipoles at the beginning; I can still remember when the concept sort of "clicked" for me (which didn't happen until organic chemistry I, in my case).
Ooooh, that was a more challenging and in turn MUCH more interesting bust than going after snakeoil salesmen for the 20th time. There is actually some interesting physics happening here.
10:05 “I’ve rubbed some grease from my hair on it.” I think this is absolutely wrong. (Does RU-vid delete your comment if you edit it a few times?) I’m sure someone can correct me on that. But I’m very sure that the transfer of grease has nothing to do with building static charge on plastic from that process. Normally, static charge only develops on insulators. Conductors too easily discharge. Going further, though irrelevant to my objection: hair with low oil builds static more easily. And grease may actually act as an antistatic agent for insulators - helping dissipation of charge because of interaction with moisture in the air.
Hes just plain wrong grease has nothing to do with it also the charge is acctually building up you can see it but he only ever does it briefly so and wjen he later sais that it builds up when holds it down stream even when the stream isnt being bent it charges up the beam IS being bent
I love this video. It's easy to have a retort to a person, but much harder to argue with experimental evidence like that. I note that Derek didn't do any experiments in his video -- he just had animations to support his claims. You've also captured the peer review part of the scientific method I might add.
As a layman I really appreciated how eloquently you presented all this. And the timing on the Python clip made me laugh out loud... at a youtube video of all things.
The wiki article on "Chemical polarity" has a section about the electrical deflection of water and links to a year 2000 paper which is possibly where Veritasium got the idea (?) . Anyway, that paper used a UNIFORM electric field, quoting: "Streams of water and polar organic liquids could be deflected in a uniform electric field, which could not have exerted any force on dipolar species". So when the researchers found that they could still deflect liquids (nonpolar and polar) from grounded faucets they put it down to ionic impurities
That paper also used strongly inhomogenuous fields and found no deflection on droplets, which also rules out the polarization explanation. Even Thunderf00t's own experiments show that (17:40). "We have shown that deflection can be caused by homogeneous fields, which can exert no net force on molecular dipoles. We have further shown that when droplets of polar liquids form in an electrically screened field-free region, so that they are uncharged, no deflection is detectable in either homogeneous or inhomogeneous fields."
A uniform electric field on a dielectric requires equal and opposite charges in the front and back, like on a plate capacitor. Thus, a deflection means that the - charge pulls more than the + charge, or vice-versa. This could be true if there was a net charge, like in the Millikan oil-drop experiment, but there would be no net force on dipoles aligned with the field.
Interesting, I would like to look at the actual paper. Paywall!. Anyway, deflection in a uniform field would be very interesting, if it happens. One does expect forces on dielectrics in nonuniform fields as the dipoles reorient. Polar / nonpolar and insulating / conductive are different axis; I see a suspiciously blanket statement about polar molecules in the abstract, and an explanation using conduction. Very pure water and many organic substances have low conductivity, though there is an intrinsic level of ions in water. We do know in some cases a net charge on tiny droplets can occur, in oils and such, that is how the charge on the electron (as opposed to charge / mass) was measured. This charge was not due to ions, but triboelectricity.
@@physicist137 Yes, I didn't watch that part until you pointed it out, but that seems to confirm the paper. In the video he simply says "interestingly" rather than trying to explain it! I would at least be asking why polar molecules are not behaving the same way below transition (or maybe he did ask that and I missed it). As for ions, he and others in the comments said that the ultrapure water has some autoionization but it wouldn't be enough to move such a mass (appeal to intuition?), therefore it has to be polarity causing deflection. The paper also appeals: "Intuition suggests that any nonuniformity in the electric field ... must be far too small to have any detectable effect on molecular dipoles." Also testing with an ultrapure and highly polar liquid that has an extremely low autoionization would be useful. If such a stream does not deflect it would show that polarity isn't the reason. Since we don't know whether those other chemicals autoionize, it's not really conclusive. One thing I noticed was that 1,4-Dioxane hardly moved yet it has a pretty significant dipole moment...maybe he had to move the plastic closer. At least I'm suggesting the amount of deflection should match the dipole moment if dipole moment is the reason.
My favorite videos by far are when the youtube scientists posit something, and others will test, verify and scrutinize. Its the rare instance where the internet feels like its being used as originally intended.
At 16:47: This is the principle behind Electrospray Ionization in mass spectrometry. Usually there is a gasflow that dries the droplets out until they can't hold their charge at the surface and explode further into smaller particles when the electrostatic repulsion overcomes the surface tension. Pretty cool :)
I read the title and immediately thought "Hey, don't pick on Veratasium! He tries pretty hard." But it turns out, Tf00t did a pretty solid job with it and (relatively) politely debunked V's claim. Now I'm Jonesing for science toys. When I was, like, 11 years old, I used to paw through the Edmund Scientific catalog thinking "when I grow up and have money, I'm buying EVERYTHING in this catalog". Now that I can actually do it, I've (mostly) lost the urge. Maybe if I had a mad scientist lab in the basement with tonnes of room to shelve everything... Hmmm... Hello Zillow!
"Hey, don't pick on Veratasium! He Tries pretty hard." Nah he should be held to higher standards because there's a team working with him behind the scenes.
Thunderf00t has "a mad scientist lab in the basement with tonnes of room to shelve everything", and in the living room, and in the kitchen, and on the balcony.
Veritassium plays really fast&loose. His recent lightbulb on 1 light second wire video is a good example, and AlphaPhoenix made a great experimental follow-up to it - essentially the lightbulb receives pitiful milliamps through induction and his great hype of "You've been lied to" is a shameless clickbait. Someone with this sort of channel name, popularity and budget needs to be held to higher standards.
This was brilliant, reminded me of The Royal Institute Christmas lectures. Love the way, when you push the charge into them, that the watet droplets repel each other after the laminar flow breaks down as they all have the same charge.
Difference between a normal thunderf00t busting (scam science trying to sell vaporware) and this. Thunderf00t on this - "he is wrong" Thunderf00t on vaporware - "this is bullshit" Getting thunderf00t to say "he is wrong" is a compliment. Getting thunderf00t to say "he is not completely wrong" is a huge compliment.
Veritasium is a fine channel, and he is interested in science, but I have never followed his channel, because I have always thought his explanations a bit too often were strange, sketchy or straight out wrong. I like for my source of knowledge to be of a kind where I do not have to double-check everything to be sure. :-)
It does seem like he likes going for more sensationalize things, by saying stuff like "Hey you know this thing we all believe it is wrong!" Because he probably gets more clicks that way. I don't think his science is that bad(in general) but the profit driven motive does influence him at times.
@@Lilitha11 I do agree 100% and yes he is properly a great guy who's interested in educating and, money does not hurt. :-) I do just not feel I can use his channel as an educational and reliable source, if let's say, 5-10% of what he is saying is wrong. Of course can anybody make mistakes, and we do learn that old "facts" were wrong, but when what he is wrong in, is already established and tested knowledge, then do I have to say no thanks. :-)
I have followed Veritasium since he was well below 10,000 subs.... Derek is all about clicks, views, and monetization and uses "science" as his playground. Right or wrong Derek simply focuses on what will earn cash. He really doesn't care if he is right or wrong, in fact being wrong probably gets him more views. Don't be fooled, Derek isn't about science education, he is about cash. If you watch his body of work, especially his explanations of how RU-vid and Clickbait work you will see clearly what Derek is all about.
@@cernos7230 No almost nothing is 100% reliable, but if what a person says, is known to be wrong or easily can be demonstrated to be so by more knowledgeable persons than me, do I not feel I can trust that person to educate me. I have no chance of knowing if what i "know" turns out to be wrong and maybe leads me to a wrong conclusion. :-)
@@TheDanil044 lmao yeah ok. You could never explain why it sounds weird to you without qualified scientists explaining why. You have no idea why what he says sounds weird
@Celestial I think what he means by "weird"....is that it sounds scripted(because V's videos are, and usually by others). It feels as though the guy telling you doesn't fully understand the science and the explanation is lacking because of it. That's what I think he means and I see/hear/feel it too. And that's okay. V is a great science communicator, not a practicing scientist.
In the Veritasium experiment, the water was coming out of a faucet, which more than likely had a connection to ground. That would allow the movement of electrical charge to ground, which doesn't look possible in this protocol. It would be interesting to try introducing a ground wire into the pipette. Just a thought....... Loved the setups and logic in this experiment. I also was dubious about Veritasium's claims. I biology were are taught that the surface tension of waters polar molecule allows transpiration in plants.Surely it would also be attracted to a charge. Thanks for this video!
One thing I'd like to see tested: your claim that it's "grease from my hair" that holds the charge on the plastic. Polyethylene (PE) pipe is known to generate static from the friction of fluid flow. It can be dangerous to have flammable air-fuel mixtures flowing in PE pipe. Special antistatic coatings are used. What if you rubbed the PE on something non-greasy? I'm pretty sure I've seen this done by rubbing stuff on nylon jumpers etc.
He already did , watch the video carefully. He touched the fully charged machine with the plastic, it didn't charge the plastic. It's the stuff that sticks to the plastic when you rub it that builds up charge
@@18skaterboy18 Glass won't take a charge INTO the object that way either since it's an insulator, but it will hold a static charge on the surface generated by rubbing it with rabbit fur as discussed above. That's high school physics. I'm pretty certain PET works the same, though there's additives that can be added to reduce the formation of static electricity, though I doubt a drinking cup would have such additives.
this will be PIA to prove. Maybe if he de-greased his hair with hexane 😀 You dont have to worry about static electricity setting you on fire with hexane obviously
I used to think the, mind boggling, protracted, cult of personality, conflicts between academics was a thing of the past. Glad you're around to keep the insanity alive!
another very good demonstration ! I was also skeptical of the ions theory, I am glad you were able to explain AND set up an experiment to support the claim! nicely done!
It doesn't happen a lot that I watch a 30+ minute video on RU-vid completely from beginning to the end and without skipping. This was very interesting. Love the hands-on figuring things out and love it that you didn't cut the footage where you lost a life. Very instructive indeed. Thanks!
I really enjoy your production on this video! This version of *BUSTED!* - I feel - gives you more credibility because you're not only on camera (instead of solely voiceover), but you actually do experiments to prove something wrong. I would love to see more of your videos presented in this style, if possible.
There’s a flaw in your experimental setup. The water from a tap is GROUNDED on the “tap” end. You need to provide an electrical ground for the water in the syringe. Love the video!!
Man, this one was fire. Coincidentally, we're trying to reshape our introductory student labs at [redacted] University with specific regard to electrostatics this semester. I'm looking forward to the discussions I'm going to have with my colleagues as to how this can be incorporated pedagogically.
@@marian-gabriel9518 Ah. I stinks I see the problem. There's a distinct lack of lower lands here. You peoples needs more tulips, dykes, clogs and proper 'g's. In other words, 'Pedagogisch' could be the pinnacle of Dutch pronunciation.
This is how science should be presented in school, and this is why everyone who claims science is a religion should be forced to sit through this kind of demonstrations!
At youtube you have incomparable bigger selection from population to who make content and who gain popularity, one at tens of millions. At school you didnt choose who will be your teacher. Sсhool teacher have like 1:200 or less ratio from population. University teachers have ratio like 1:1000 or less. Plus motivation for creating good content - at youtube its first goal to entertain and engage audience.
@@c.augustin science is very much like a religion, in the modern day it has to be. at some point you have to show faith because you have neither the time money or expertise to verify the facts yourself. the vast majority of science is held as a matter of faith. maybe you are an expert and can verify some things, you will never test the whole of human knowledge in your lifetime.
@@Paoa02 I know what you're trying to say but science is not "like" religion, it's the polar opposite because science by definition can be tested, no matter how inconvenient, whereas religion can't.
I'm torn with channels like Veritasium. I mean, yes it tends to be clickbaity and yes he does express undeserved certainty a lot of the time, but he is actually attempting to explore scientific concepts simply because they're interesting. He's not spouting pseudoscience or trying to sell snake oil. I get the impression that the things he gets wrong are honest mistakes, not deliberate attempts to mislead. Hopefully he has the humility to admit when he's wrong.
At least snake oil is easy to spot. Laymans will have trouble with veritasium tho because he mixes facts with misleading claims and sometimes flat-out lies and he also refuses to admit when he's wrong. He thinks he has the right to be arrogant just because he has a degree, lmao.
I think that self driving car thing was snake oil tbh, I don't know his intentions for sure but I'd guess he struggles with morality vs. profit like many in this world lol
Just remember he has no motive to mislead people & accomplish the same thing if making interesting videos with factual science. Also he is pretty transparent about when he's wrong & seems like a nice person so I wouldn't be too bad. But this video was really cool, I don't even remember watching the video from 2014.
@@levelup1279 _"Just remember he has no motive to mislead people & accomplish the same thing if making interesting videos with factual science."_ In other words, you think because the video is "science-based" that it somehow eliminates any possibility of ulterior motives? How naïve can you be? By your own logic, Nazi science was perfectly sound and free of bias simply because it's science. Science is merely a tool we invented and like any tool it can be misused. And it certainly doesn't provide a basis for morality. Veritasium is not transparent when he's wrong, such as with the video he made on electricity. He was corrected in some aspects by ElectroBOOM and yet he never actually admitted he was wrong. You are letting your personal feelings get in the way of the truth.
@@levelup1279 yes he has motive, views, subscriptions and revenue are motivation. making a video like TF just made takes day's, hundreds of hours, resources and money. that veratasium dickhead used a polypropylene cup an iphone and told 14 year olds that the negative charge in the cup can bend water. the end.
I have a question about 11:56, and the first experiment. In Veritasium’s claim, some of the negatively charged ions go back into the spigot. A metal spigot is a conductor, and therefore can hold onto that charge. However, your buret looks to be plastic. Because of this, the buret tip would not hold onto the negative ions. Therefore, there would be no build-up of charge, as the charges were only temporarily separated, before re-associating in the air. Furthermore, every bit of water you have contains some amount of dissolved carbon dioxide, which will create a slightly acidic solution. In order to properly test this hypothesis, wouldn’t we have to use ultra pure water in a completely inert atmosphere? If the water is still deflected in this new environment, then clearly the bending is due to polarity of water. But, if the bending is due to charged ions, the bending would then disappear.
