@ Are you math challenged? Most conversions I can do in my head. I am old enough to remember Imperial measurement in Canada before we converted to metric. Conversion is easy.
i don't think most people are capable of thinking this way, but implosions due vacuum inside, show you just how much pressure we're under. i'm talking about air pressure at sea level, it's so intense, yet we don't even feel it. this also tells you how big of force air resistance can be if object is not aerodynamic.
the pressure is not so high, but the objects not designed to contain pressure fail. They should have tried with a fire extinguisher and see the difference. The ripples on the barrels are not there to contain pressure, but only for rigidity. On the wagon, the pressure protection is some safety valves, not the cylinder itself. The DOT111 tanks in north America are 11.1mm thick. That is not much more than a personal scuba tank that is way smaller.
@@jeanmartin963 1atm of pressure is equivalent to about a kilogram per square centimeter so 10 metric tons per square meter, an average human has 1.5-2 square meters of skin surface area so we're being squeezed by the atmosphere on the order of 15-20 tons.
Yes our internal pressure is equal which is why we don't get squished in to meat paste, that doesn't mean the atmosphere isn't exerting 15-20 tons of force on our skin, our internals are just pushing out equally as hard.
the fact that it took that much pressure, with a clear weakpoint while the car was already rusted and beat up really tells you how safe these cars are made to be
it is not made too withstand such pressure for an extended amount of time. if they waited a few hours more the thing would have imploded. the thing is build too not explode but not build too not implode.
the most absurd thing is, that this collapse happend with only a single atmosphere of pressure difference. The pressuredifference between inside and outside of the titan sub where ~350 atmospheres.
I wonder what was the pressure differential in the oceangate sub, here they came very close to a vacuum, but had only one atmosphere around, the sub had one atmosphere inside (I assume?) but 400 atmospheres around it when it imploded, does that mean that the pressure the sub had to withstand was 400x greater? That seems ridiculous given that 1 atmospehere difference can bend and crush half an inch (1.27cm) of steel.
@@FrantisekChury Differential pressure works exactly this simply. It's p_in - p_out. So yeh, going down to the Titanic at 40MPa means you basically have to build a hull that can take 400 atmospheres of pressure from the outside in. Guess what though, if you inginerd it well and build it just right, the whole thing is perfectly loaded in compression. Then you skookumfact to taste. Stockton Mush did neither. Triton though have that process just about nailed. That's how they can easily get you all the way down into the Mariana trench. At those pressures you're pretty much entirely limited to a spherical hull. Turns out, acrylic is a pretty good material for this application. Normally they make windows out of it, but the joint is a weakness, so Triton makes the whole bubble out of the stuff. So not only are you at the absolute peak depths of the ocean, you get a pretty uninterrupted view as well.
@@FrantisekChury The pressure differential between that hastily sealed can and the outside is probably around half an atmosphere max; so it is closer to 1000 times the pressure differential.
Hang on, I've got a *_brilliant idea._* Say we build a giant tube, thousands of kilometers long and evacuate all the air out of it. If we put a train or pod inside carrying freight or people, the near vacuum could allow it to move at supersonic velocities! Damn... I should patent this idea! It could be a revolutionary new mode of transportation.
there used to be a gadget at stores where cash could be sent in little pods around the store. Look around older places to see the 3 inch diameter tubing.
Many years ago, I worked at Concrete plant, and to get water, they sucked it out of pond on the property into a small tank truck. I filled the truck, there was about 5 inches of ice on the pond when I did this. I drove it over to plant, hooked the truck to hose that would put the water in the tank, opened the valve and 2 minutes later the 10,000 gallon tank collapsed. There was boiling water in tank, about 2 feet of when I opened that valve
I've got a bottle of fanta that's been crushed down quite a bit by air pressure. It was taken up to 7400ft in the Austrian Alps this summer, and is now at a few hundred feet in my house. The pressure difference is only about 3PSI, but it's enough.
Kudo to the manufacturer, for making something truly strong, probably thinking this could happen to make it stronger than needed, hopefully time will keep them this way.
There are so many types of tanker waggons out there, and I bet the myth is from a time when safety standards werent there where they now are. After all boiler implosions on steam locomitives did happen.
So it was the atmosperic pressure then crushed it the end. Yes?. So this should then prove in a vacuum (space) only a very small amount of presuure internally should be able to maintain a shape (of a craft) with not a great amount of wall thickness. yes? It would be also intersiting to see the maths behind this! Thank you Jamie and Adam.
And why a spaceship (that is not taking off from Earth) can be any shape you want and without air resistance during flight could be made to be any shape and still remain efficient for travel. So from space travel perspective, The Enterprise from Star Trek looks and will function well in space. Of course your only problem is high speed debris that will puncture your very thin spaceship wall. But really, the main reason for having a thicker wall is the radiation. But yes, couple inches of water (like an insulated flask but with water inside instead of air) will work really well. And the atmospheric pressure is just from air, imagine the pressure created by water. The Titan really stood no chance underwater but out in space if would be fine.
IMHO, this is by far the best episode of the entire Mythbuster series. I’m surely partial to vacuum, ahem… lower than atmospheric pressure, because it was a good part of my career as process engineer in microelectronics wafer fabs. BTW Every time the narrator voice says “negative pressure” I cringe 😬, that’s Flat Earthers level of science language. THERE IS NO NEGATIVE PRESSURE, there is a pressure differential which we colloquially refer to as vacuum, when it’s below std atmospheric pressure
actually it is much more convenient to put the zero on the scale at ambient atmospheric pressure for every day life. just imagine checking tire pressure of your car when there would be conflicting instructions and gauges.
In the field of high vacuum (where you want to exclude air) negative pressure makes no sense, but in a lot of fields of endeavour where pressure or vacuum is used they are both expressed as a "gauge pressure" i.e. the pressure relative to atmospheric. So pressure above atmospheric is a positive gauge pressure, and pressure below atmospheric is a negative gauge pressure. I build pneumatic conveying systems, many of which work on partial vacuum, and the whole industry calls them "negative pressure systems" because they use a gauge pressure that is negative. When doing calculations it makes total sense as an engineering concept, because either way (positive or negative) it is the pressure difference from atmospheric, that drives the system. So the concept of "negative pressure" makes perfect sense for systems that work in a sea of gas that's at ambient pressure by creating a pressure that's lower to make something move, and is very widely used. It's just a matter of where you take your zero datum; like when you say "how tall is a building?" you expect to know its height above the surrounding streets, not the height above mean sea level.
@@sunside79334 "just imagine checking tire pressure of your car when there would be conflicting instructions and gauges." So instead of 2.5 bar you would read there 3.5 ... wow "conflicting".
I love how the three barrels crumpled in the shape of an equilateral triangle. Going from the second structurally stronges shape - the circle/hyperbola, to the strongest - the triangle, is like physical poetry in motion
those clips and that other compilation on how manufacturers make spherical contairner by doing opposite. Looks so unreal and very real at the same time. Physics is just amazing.
Atmospheric pressure at sea level is roughly 15lb per square inch. That adds up very quickly the larger a vacuum container gets. For a 55 gallon drum, that's about 3219 square inches of surface area, which totals 24 tons of pressure.
So the metal tube was also the structure of the train car. That has to be very strong to handle the cars bumping into each other. Now I guess an tank car transporting foodstuff like milk or olive oil would be of stainless steel and it would sit on a frame so the tank is not structural and would collapse much easier.
This makes me wonder what the pressures would be like if they could pull a full vacuum on a strong tanker. Water vaporization happens about -29”hg at room temp. So it basically boils and turns to steam at room temp. Without an external pump to remove that newly formed water vapor then I would think it would just stay in the tanker. Eventually it would hit the point where the water vapor would work to cancel out the vacuum being formed by condensation.
I wish they would have had a micron gauge on that tanker. I pull a vacuum on hvac equipment all that time but we use micron to tell how good of a vacuum we pull. Generally Dow to 400 micron.
Normal air pressure at sea level is around 1 Bar. Consequently, unless you perform the test in a pressure chamber, the maximum underpressure you can obtain is 1 Bar.
In case anyone wonders about the marking on the side of the tank: AAR Interchange Rule #90 outlines what cannot be interchanged from railroad to railroad. For example: -All freight cars built or rebuilt prior to January 1, 1957. -Cars not properly registered in the AAR UMLER file, as required by the UMLER Specification Manual. etc... So the tank was infact destined for decommissioning even though it looked so good on the surface. There are so many reasons why, but at least it died for science!
Interesting. The drum test - does it matter how much water they put in there? Also, is a cylindrical vessel always going to crush to a triangle during this kind of process?
18:33 man that is really smart using those dollys upsidedown to hold the barrels while welding so they stay there and are able to make the barrel roll!
most flasks are already under vacuum and don’t collapse, think about that also the amount of empty volume matters greatly, notice that they’re using minimal amounts of liquid compared to the entire container size
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if they had cycled the heat - vacuum cycle say 10 or so times. I'm just wondering if the steam clean and closing is something that happens semi-regularly whether it rains or not.
You don't need to use water or a sealed drum. I got to crush a steel drum, when I was using one as an incinerator. I had just finished burning our rubbish and it started to rain, so I put the lid back on to the drum . About half hour later me and my mum heard a loud bag and I found the drum had collapsed on itself.
To help explain it mathematically, the core of this myth comes from the Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT P = pressure V = volume n = moles (mass/Avogaddro's number; functionally, it is just the mass of the gas(es) inside) R = Ideal Gas constant T = temperature If you know your basic math, then you know that if the total of one side of the equation changes, then the total of the other side has to change in order to match it. In this case, looking at the nRT side, the n and R are fixed values, so only T can change, and in this case, it is to a lesser value. Because of this, the nRT total decreases, so to balance it, the PV total has to decrease as well. However, with a sealed container, V becomes a fixed value, so the only variable that can change is P. Therefore, as T decreases, so will P. Thus, if the container's internal P is less than its external P, as they mention in the video, well, then you get the results that you see in the video, not to mention what other comments here refer to with Oceangate (how catastrophic it is depends on the exact difference between the two values as well as the stats and condition of the container).
You can't apply the ideal gas law if you aso have condensation. The steam can turn into liquid water when it cools down which causes an even greater pressure drop. Then you get a two phase system which is more complicated
@hantrio4327 Yes, you can. In fact, condensation is a result of the ideal gas law. In a sealed container, condensation cannot come from nothing. There has to be mass for it to draw from, and in a sealed container, the only place that mass can come from is from the gasses in there, which would be water vapor in this case. Condensation can only occur if the temperature drops enough to allow for it. If temperature is dropping while the volume remains unchanged, then that means that pressure is dropping as well. As for the steam turning into water, well, guess what, that greater pressure drop you mention is because the forming liquid water draws out even more heat, thus lowering the temperature faster than only steam would, leading to that greater pressure drop you mention. Water forming in the container and thus creating a two-phase system does not disprove the ideal gas law here. If anything, it only reinforces the law. To reiterate, the mass contained within did not change, the temperature had to drop significantly for the liquid to form, and that drop in temperature leads to a drop in pressure. The most liquid water does to complicate this is speed up the transfer/loss in temperature. Examining it as a two-phase system is only necessary if you want to figure out the exact values for each variable in the ideal gas law at a given time. The two are not in any way mutually exclusive, and your argument tries to treat them as though they are.
@@DavidRichardson153 The ideal gas law only gives accurate results for ideal gases. Ideal gases don't condense. You can assume gases to behave like an ideal gas but there always some deviation. The deviation for water at its boiling point is way to big for it to make sense to use the ideal gas law. You can only explain that the pressure drops when the temperature decreases. You won't be able to calculate the pressure just with the ideal gas law. Just try it. When applying the ideal gas law the pressure is not even close to a vacuum
@@hantrio4327 First off, you do know that the deviation you keep bringing is still based on the ideal gas law, don't you? In fact, I'll show you: (PV)/(nRT) = Z Z = compressibility factor (a.k.a. gas deviation factor); if Z = 1, the gas is ideal Now, before you try to claim that this proves your point, look at it again. Notice that _it still uses the ideal gas law._ But hey, that's just the statistical mechanics side of thermodynamics, isn't it? Then let's look at what the compressibility factor Z is then used in outside of that (but still in thermodynamics): Z = P/(p(R/M)T) P = pressure p = gas density R = specific gas constant M = molar mass T = temperature Notice something that this equation? Such as how, if either temperature or pressure decreases, then the other will have to as well in order to maintain the value for Z? What you are arguing only matters if you are trying to calculate the _exact values_ of the variables, and even, it still uses the ideal gas law, just with an extra factor to account for when it does not line up as an ideal gas. To be fair, few gases ever do line up, even what is typically regarded as ideal gasses, especially when they are outside of the recommended conditions to be an ideal gas - i.e. higher temperatures and lower pressures - but it still serves well as a basis for thermodynamic calculations, _as I have just shown you._ As I said, all you have done is prove my point. You keep acting like because the ideal gas law is not the most accurate, it should be disregarded for this case. I never said it was; I only said that is the core of this myth. It just so happens to also be the core of your argument, whether you realize it or not, and I have now showed you that even the core of your argument shows that you cannot actually disregard it and that you should still start with it. Could I have worded it better? Sure, but your argument is still fundamentally flawed.
@DavidRichardson153 That's what I'm saying. You don't get exact values in this case when using the ideal gas law. You can only make broad qualitative comments. When you plug in the values for this experiment you get a final pressure that is way too high because condensation plays a much bigger role than just the gas cooling without condensing. You get closer to the real result if you assume that all the steam turns into liquid water with no vapor pressure. Almost vacuum is closer to complete vacuum than to moderately reduced pressure
Ok, you are drinking water through a straw, what force is getting the water into your mouth? Is the lower pressure in your mouth ‘sucking’ the water into your mouth, or is the higher outside pressure pushing the water into your mouth? I say the water is being pushed into your mouth. That principle is what is going on here. The outside pressure is crushing the vessel.
Those oil drums had over 12 tons of force pushing in on them when they collapsed. The rail car, by my quick math, has 325,000 square inches on its exterior surface. At 16” Hg (8 psi) vacuum that is 2,600,000 pounds of force pushing in. Or 1300 tons. This should be fun…
@@rickschlosser6793 Please explain. I understand these both to be units of mass, and that pound-force and ton force are the standard units of force in the Imperial system of units. I am an SI Briton, so I might have it wrong! We have mass in kg, and both weight and force in Newtons; kg.m/s^2.
@@thedubwhisperer2157You ever see or hear comparison of pressure underwater like "an elephant on top of of you ". Well, that's because they are very similar force. Other than the unit of pressure (Bar), the force can only be approximated using weight units because it is the only other unit with a "pushing" force. But yeah it is often use as "pounds per square inch" and you can pretty much replace pounds with other units for weight (tons, kg, grams) because that is the only way it will makes sense to us. Another way of looking at it is this: imagine a needle standing on your palm. Just with its own weight, it won't puncture you. But just imagine if you can put an elephant on top of it. The entire weight of that elephant, average of 12k pounds, is concentrated on that point. This is also why Superman can't lift a building without it crumbling or him just going thru that bulding the way that needle will pass thru your palm. Batman can only lift a building if that building is made of entirely solid material and that that poinf it is just a cube of solid object and if is softer than Superman's hand he will still go thru it.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 You would be correct on both counts. This btw. is the a good example of what happens when one learns middle-aged imperial units instead of modern SI units.
The problems with this experiment: 1. Failed to recreate the original conditions where the myth comes from. In the golden age of the Soviet Union, they used to wash train carts with steaming water to melt the frost. This means they were operating under enviromental solid water temperature and a cart covered by an ice crust. 2. Modern tanks are better at resisting atm implosions, even without the relief valve.
Seen the results of a full size tank car being drained when they forgot to open the vent. Total collapse and also so much running gear damage it couldn't be pulled away on the rails. Had to be cut up and towed away as scrap.
I wouldnt say busted. as they never took into account the ambient air temperature in the myth. If it was a cold day when the tank was being steam cleaned. Along with the rain. It could have cooled down faster perhaps?
Awesome! But why don't they do some calculations and simulations alongside the initial testings? It would provide them with so much more useful information.
I don't know what has happened to Jamie but I can easily crush an egg in my hands without giving it a tiny crack on a frying pan first. I suppose what he meant to say was that if you hold an egg at the top and bottom, between your fingers, then you will not be able to break the egg, but if you hold it on the sides of the egg breaking it becomes easy.
It does not make any sense that higher temperature would make it a) take longer to cool down, b) take longer, and c) have a more violent collapse. All of that is the variability of the barrel in question... do multiples side-by-side of this and you'd find that out. But, these guys "do science" all the time, I've never caught them thinking like a scientist. If you start at a higher temperature the laws of thermodynamics say it will cool faster. If it cools faster the only way it could take longer is if the vessel held up more. If the collapse was more violent, it was because the vessel held up longer. It is *truly cinematic* that they "discover" they need the highest starting temperature possible. If I'm wrong, if it was was a genuine discovery, that after testing they determined the highest starting temperature would give them the most pressure differential, then they truly are unconscionably blithering (very popular) idiots.
Name this episode "Anticipointment" 99% build up, and while the result is cool, it was still very anti climactic! Even with the ads this should have been 15 minutes tops!
I'd like to see this with vacuum created by draining the contents to a low laying reservoir. (For water it would need to be 10 m below the drainage tap. Would need vauum stable drainage hoses, though.
It's also possible to cause a collapse to a container with a vacuum by throwing stones at it. While it withstands the pressure when untouched, a stone can be the disturbance that can crush the last bit of structural integrity. I don't think it would work on these tanks though. Too much built-in safety reserves.
These guys seem to miss the basics of some of their experiments. For a start, the pressure differential is equal to two atmospheres, or in other terms, the same as submerging a sealed, empty container to a depth of 10 metres. Ever seen a submarine? I know they have all sorts of strengthening to prevent implosions, , but they can dive to a hell of a lot deeper than 10 metres. So why on earth did they expect a cylindrical vessel to fail at only 2 atmospheres? Also,at 21.10, when the steel drums failed, you can see Jaime’s reaction time. There is a discernible delay in his reaction after the collapse. So if you ever wondered about the people who died on the Oceangate Titan, it shows that the implosion was over before there was any recognition of it happening.
I wonder if this happened to the Titan sub , because if they were using heat in the sub because it was cold down there, if the heat stopped working this can happen
When I showed this to my 11th grade physics class as a fun intro to pressure, half the class called CGI on the final squeeze. It was THAT spectacular
Props for making education fun.
Good on you. Education should be fun, not a chore.
Or just half your class are morons.
must be some retarded 11th graders. Or maybe just American.
How do you know it was exactly half the class?
It annoys me that they use Fahrenheit, pounds and inches of mercury
Cool
Converting from one engineering unit to another is easy.
@@rickschlosser6793 or just use metric like the rest of the world
@ Are you math challenged? Most conversions I can do in my head. I am old enough to remember Imperial measurement in Canada before we converted to metric.
Conversion is easy.
@@rickschlosser6793 Unless you work for NASA landing the Mars Climate Orbiter Probe on Mars, its not.
i don't think most people are capable of thinking this way, but implosions due vacuum inside, show you just how much pressure we're under. i'm talking about air pressure at sea level, it's so intense, yet we don't even feel it. this also tells you how big of force air resistance can be if object is not aerodynamic.
the pressure is not so high, but the objects not designed to contain pressure fail. They should have tried with a fire extinguisher and see the difference.
The ripples on the barrels are not there to contain pressure, but only for rigidity.
On the wagon, the pressure protection is some safety valves, not the cylinder itself. The DOT111 tanks in north America are 11.1mm thick. That is not much more than a personal scuba tank that is way smaller.
@@jeanmartin963 1atm of pressure is equivalent to about a kilogram per square centimeter so 10 metric tons per square meter, an average human has 1.5-2 square meters of skin surface area so we're being squeezed by the atmosphere on the order of 15-20 tons.
@@novadea1643 Not really. Our internal pressure is the same, so everything is in equilibrum.
@@novadea1643 only the differential of pressure matters. For the human you are speaking it is 0, for the train it is max 1atm.
Yes our internal pressure is equal which is why we don't get squished in to meat paste, that doesn't mean the atmosphere isn't exerting 15-20 tons of force on our skin, our internals are just pushing out equally as hard.
No logitech gamepads were harmed in this production.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ouch.
That's dark. But also really funny.
Oh damn 💀
and not even a drip of Stockton Mush
God bless the metric system :)
I don’t believe in god, yet I completly agree with this.
@@gregsonberlin3782 One can’t “bless” something if one doesn’t exist.
No gods, no jesus. They lied.
Gods don't exist, but lucky metric does.
It is said that NASA uses metric system!
the fact that it took that much pressure, with a clear weakpoint while the car was already rusted and beat up really tells you how safe these cars are made to be
Also I have heard that they usually have pressure safety valve that will open in case of large overpressure or underpressure.
it is not made too withstand such pressure for an extended amount of time. if they waited a few hours more the thing would have imploded. the thing is build too not explode but not build too not implode.
Ocean Gate saw this and was „no way!“
"Write that down!"
the most absurd thing is, that this collapse happend with only a single atmosphere of pressure difference. The pressuredifference between inside and outside of the titan sub where ~350 atmospheres.
this episode hits different after oceangate
not the same but kinda the same i guess
I wonder what was the pressure differential in the oceangate sub, here they came very close to a vacuum, but had only one atmosphere around, the sub had one atmosphere inside (I assume?) but 400 atmospheres around it when it imploded, does that mean that the pressure the sub had to withstand was 400x greater? That seems ridiculous given that 1 atmospehere difference can bend and crush half an inch (1.27cm) of steel.
@@FrantisekChury Differential pressure works exactly this simply. It's p_in - p_out. So yeh, going down to the Titanic at 40MPa means you basically have to build a hull that can take 400 atmospheres of pressure from the outside in.
Guess what though, if you inginerd it well and build it just right, the whole thing is perfectly loaded in compression. Then you skookumfact to taste. Stockton Mush did neither.
Triton though have that process just about nailed. That's how they can easily get you all the way down into the Mariana trench. At those pressures you're pretty much entirely limited to a spherical hull. Turns out, acrylic is a pretty good material for this application. Normally they make windows out of it, but the joint is a weakness, so Triton makes the whole bubble out of the stuff. So not only are you at the absolute peak depths of the ocean, you get a pretty uninterrupted view as well.
☠️
@@FrantisekChury
The pressure differential between that hastily sealed can and the outside is probably around half an atmosphere max; so it is closer to 1000 times the pressure differential.
One of my fav episodes when I was younger! Thanks for uploading it to TH-cam!
This is most definitely in my top 5 episodes ever! It was SO cool! Thank you for uploading it, I haven't seen this for yeeeaaars!
Thanks brotha! True meaning of TH-cam.
Hang on, I've got a *_brilliant idea._* Say we build a giant tube, thousands of kilometers long and evacuate all the air out of it. If we put a train or pod inside carrying freight or people, the near vacuum could allow it to move at supersonic velocities!
Damn... I should patent this idea! It could be a revolutionary new mode of transportation.
yeah, you musk... sorry - must do it!!
also, I find it kinda funny calling it supersonic when it's in a vacuum.
A vacuum would be harmful to anything that breathes air lol 😂
Don't forget to call it something awesome-sounding yet idiotic, like Megaring or Überhole or something like that
there used to be a gadget at stores where cash could be sent in little pods around the store. Look around older places to see the 3 inch diameter tubing.
Many years ago, I worked at Concrete plant, and to get water, they sucked it out of pond on the property into a small tank truck. I filled the truck, there was about 5 inches of ice on the pond when I did this. I drove it over to plant, hooked the truck to hose that would put the water in the tank, opened the valve and 2 minutes later the 10,000 gallon tank collapsed. There was boiling water in tank, about 2 feet of when I opened that valve
I've got a bottle of fanta that's been crushed down quite a bit by air pressure. It was taken up to 7400ft in the Austrian Alps this summer, and is now at a few hundred feet in my house. The pressure difference is only about 3PSI, but it's enough.
My blocked ears would agree after a short flight. Ouch!
Clips from this episode was shared sooo many times when Oceangate happened.
one of these would probably be safer than than titan lol
Mr Rush probably should have watched this before he became Mr Crush 😜
Kudo to the manufacturer, for making something truly strong, probably thinking this could happen to make it stronger than needed, hopefully time will keep them this way.
There are so many types of tanker waggons out there, and I bet the myth is from a time when safety standards werent there where they now are.
After all boiler implosions on steam locomitives did happen.
no they just waited not long enough too implode, these waggons are build too not explode but not build too not implode.
So it was the atmosperic pressure then crushed it the end. Yes?. So this should then prove in a vacuum (space) only a very small amount of presuure internally should be able to maintain a shape (of a craft) with not a great amount of wall thickness. yes? It would be also intersiting to see the maths behind this! Thank you Jamie and Adam.
And why a spaceship (that is not taking off from Earth) can be any shape you want and without air resistance during flight could be made to be any shape and still remain efficient for travel. So from space travel perspective, The Enterprise from Star Trek looks and will function well in space. Of course your only problem is high speed debris that will puncture your very thin spaceship wall. But really, the main reason for having a thicker wall is the radiation. But yes, couple inches of water (like an insulated flask but with water inside instead of air) will work really well. And the atmospheric pressure is just from air, imagine the pressure created by water. The Titan really stood no chance underwater but out in space if would be fine.
Yes, but we want to survive inside without spacesuits, so we have to build it to withstand higher pressures
Hey guys, wanna do a reverse blast like this with a carbon fiber railroad tanker?
Must depend a bit on how old the myth is - if the tank car was a few decades older it might not have been built so well?
they just waited not long enough for it too implode, i suspect they had an time limit there so they couldn`t wait.
IMHO, this is by far the best episode of the entire Mythbuster series. I’m surely partial to vacuum, ahem… lower than atmospheric pressure, because it was a good part of my career as process engineer in microelectronics wafer fabs. BTW Every time the narrator voice says “negative pressure” I cringe 😬, that’s Flat Earthers level of science language. THERE IS NO NEGATIVE PRESSURE, there is a pressure differential which we colloquially refer to as vacuum, when it’s below std atmospheric pressure
actually it is much more convenient to put the zero on the scale at ambient atmospheric pressure for every day life. just imagine checking tire pressure of your car when there would be conflicting instructions and gauges.
In the field of high vacuum (where you want to exclude air) negative pressure makes no sense, but in a lot of fields of endeavour where pressure or vacuum is used they are both expressed as a "gauge pressure" i.e. the pressure relative to atmospheric. So pressure above atmospheric is a positive gauge pressure, and pressure below atmospheric is a negative gauge pressure. I build pneumatic conveying systems, many of which work on partial vacuum, and the whole industry calls them "negative pressure systems" because they use a gauge pressure that is negative. When doing calculations it makes total sense as an engineering concept, because either way (positive or negative) it is the pressure difference from atmospheric, that drives the system. So the concept of "negative pressure" makes perfect sense for systems that work in a sea of gas that's at ambient pressure by creating a pressure that's lower to make something move, and is very widely used. It's just a matter of where you take your zero datum; like when you say "how tall is a building?" you expect to know its height above the surrounding streets, not the height above mean sea level.
Nivola1953 Do you use psia or psig when you check your tyre pressure?
@@sunside79334 "just imagine checking tire pressure of your car when there would be conflicting instructions and gauges."
So instead of 2.5 bar you would read there 3.5 ... wow "conflicting".
AWESOME TEST GUYS👍👍👍
is not the things crushing themselves, it's the atmospheric pressure
I love how the three barrels crumpled in the shape of an equilateral triangle. Going from the second structurally stronges shape - the circle/hyperbola, to the strongest - the triangle, is like physical poetry in motion
those clips and that other compilation on how manufacturers make spherical contairner by doing opposite. Looks so unreal and very real at the same time. Physics is just amazing.
Steve Spangler did the drum vacuum effect at the start of this
That will be lost on most people, sadly!
I really feel sorry for the ocean gate Titan passengers when in a split second it wudve imploded on to them..😢
My first thought when seeing the title: “Someone show this to stockton rush!” Oh, wait….🤣🤣
You're great guys!
The slomo shows that the implosion really starts right at the "accidental dent".
32:51 that's what she said.
"and it keeps on rising"
I would say that with a larger surface area of the scale model would cause failure at a lower internal pressure.
There be more external pressure?
Atmospheric pressure at sea level is roughly 15lb per square inch. That adds up very quickly the larger a vacuum container gets. For a 55 gallon drum, that's about 3219 square inches of surface area, which totals 24 tons of pressure.
The ton is not a unit of pressure.
Units all over the place
they should take the imploded tank and try inflate it again in some fun way 😂
That was fun!
So the metal tube was also the structure of the train car. That has to be very strong to handle the cars bumping into each other.
Now I guess an tank car transporting foodstuff like milk or olive oil would be of stainless steel and it would sit on a frame so the tank is not structural and would collapse much easier.
How much pressure to re inflate it. 🎈
Lots!
This makes me wonder what the pressures would be like if they could pull a full vacuum on a strong tanker. Water vaporization happens about -29”hg at room temp. So it basically boils and turns to steam at room temp. Without an external pump to remove that newly formed water vapor then I would think it would just stay in the tanker. Eventually it would hit the point where the water vapor would work to cancel out the vacuum being formed by condensation.
I wish they would have had a micron gauge on that tanker. I pull a vacuum on hvac equipment all that time but we use micron to tell how good of a vacuum we pull. Generally Dow to 400 micron.
Normal air pressure at sea level is around 1 Bar. Consequently, unless you perform the test in a pressure chamber, the maximum underpressure you can obtain is 1 Bar.
In case anyone wonders about the marking on the side of the tank:
AAR Interchange Rule #90 outlines what cannot be interchanged from railroad to railroad. For example:
-All freight cars built or rebuilt prior to January 1, 1957.
-Cars not properly registered in the AAR UMLER file, as required by the UMLER Specification Manual.
etc...
So the tank was infact destined for decommissioning even though it looked so good on the surface. There are so many reasons why, but at least it died for science!
What was the cost of the whole ordeal ?
Interesting. The drum test - does it matter how much water they put in there? Also, is a cylindrical vessel always going to crush to a triangle during this kind of process?
16:00 Love hove somebody came to the window to see what happen but was just like - naa, boring 🤣😂
I miss this show
I think Gav and Dan from The Slow Mo Guys need to record an implosion with how fast it happens!
"it's pulling the sides in " No. They're being PUSHED in.
It was pretty awesome indeed
Imagine the sound inside when the block was dropped
18:33 man that is really smart using those dollys upsidedown to hold the barrels while welding so they stay there and are able to make the barrel roll!
Why doesn't this happen to the glass insert of a flask when your coffee cools down?
If all the coffee in the thermos was steam, it probably would. The difference in volume between hot water and cold water wouldn't really be that much.
most flasks are already under vacuum and don’t collapse, think about that
also the amount of empty volume matters greatly, notice that they’re using minimal amounts of liquid compared to the entire container size
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if they had cycled the heat - vacuum cycle say 10 or so times. I'm just wondering if the steam clean and closing is something that happens semi-regularly whether it rains or not.
You don't need to use water or a sealed drum. I got to crush a steel drum, when I was using one as an incinerator. I had just finished burning our rubbish and it started to rain, so I put the lid back on to the drum . About half hour later me and my mum heard a loud bag and I found the drum had collapsed on itself.
Finally something new.
I'm convinced the tank just took exception to "melon farmer".
They just busted the viability of a silly thing called the hyperloop
To help explain it mathematically, the core of this myth comes from the Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT
P = pressure
V = volume
n = moles (mass/Avogaddro's number; functionally, it is just the mass of the gas(es) inside)
R = Ideal Gas constant
T = temperature
If you know your basic math, then you know that if the total of one side of the equation changes, then the total of the other side has to change in order to match it. In this case, looking at the nRT side, the n and R are fixed values, so only T can change, and in this case, it is to a lesser value. Because of this, the nRT total decreases, so to balance it, the PV total has to decrease as well.
However, with a sealed container, V becomes a fixed value, so the only variable that can change is P. Therefore, as T decreases, so will P. Thus, if the container's internal P is less than its external P, as they mention in the video, well, then you get the results that you see in the video, not to mention what other comments here refer to with Oceangate (how catastrophic it is depends on the exact difference between the two values as well as the stats and condition of the container).
You can't apply the ideal gas law if you aso have condensation. The steam can turn into liquid water when it cools down which causes an even greater pressure drop. Then you get a two phase system which is more complicated
@hantrio4327 Yes, you can. In fact, condensation is a result of the ideal gas law. In a sealed container, condensation cannot come from nothing. There has to be mass for it to draw from, and in a sealed container, the only place that mass can come from is from the gasses in there, which would be water vapor in this case. Condensation can only occur if the temperature drops enough to allow for it. If temperature is dropping while the volume remains unchanged, then that means that pressure is dropping as well. As for the steam turning into water, well, guess what, that greater pressure drop you mention is because the forming liquid water draws out even more heat, thus lowering the temperature faster than only steam would, leading to that greater pressure drop you mention.
Water forming in the container and thus creating a two-phase system does not disprove the ideal gas law here. If anything, it only reinforces the law. To reiterate, the mass contained within did not change, the temperature had to drop significantly for the liquid to form, and that drop in temperature leads to a drop in pressure. The most liquid water does to complicate this is speed up the transfer/loss in temperature. Examining it as a two-phase system is only necessary if you want to figure out the exact values for each variable in the ideal gas law at a given time. The two are not in any way mutually exclusive, and your argument tries to treat them as though they are.
@@DavidRichardson153 The ideal gas law only gives accurate results for ideal gases. Ideal gases don't condense. You can assume gases to behave like an ideal gas but there always some deviation. The deviation for water at its boiling point is way to big for it to make sense to use the ideal gas law. You can only explain that the pressure drops when the temperature decreases. You won't be able to calculate the pressure just with the ideal gas law. Just try it. When applying the ideal gas law the pressure is not even close to a vacuum
@@hantrio4327 First off, you do know that the deviation you keep bringing is still based on the ideal gas law, don't you? In fact, I'll show you:
(PV)/(nRT) = Z
Z = compressibility factor (a.k.a. gas deviation factor); if Z = 1, the gas is ideal
Now, before you try to claim that this proves your point, look at it again. Notice that _it still uses the ideal gas law._ But hey, that's just the statistical mechanics side of thermodynamics, isn't it? Then let's look at what the compressibility factor Z is then used in outside of that (but still in thermodynamics):
Z = P/(p(R/M)T)
P = pressure
p = gas density
R = specific gas constant
M = molar mass
T = temperature
Notice something that this equation? Such as how, if either temperature or pressure decreases, then the other will have to as well in order to maintain the value for Z? What you are arguing only matters if you are trying to calculate the _exact values_ of the variables, and even, it still uses the ideal gas law, just with an extra factor to account for when it does not line up as an ideal gas. To be fair, few gases ever do line up, even what is typically regarded as ideal gasses, especially when they are outside of the recommended conditions to be an ideal gas - i.e. higher temperatures and lower pressures - but it still serves well as a basis for thermodynamic calculations, _as I have just shown you._
As I said, all you have done is prove my point. You keep acting like because the ideal gas law is not the most accurate, it should be disregarded for this case. I never said it was; I only said that is the core of this myth. It just so happens to also be the core of your argument, whether you realize it or not, and I have now showed you that even the core of your argument shows that you cannot actually disregard it and that you should still start with it. Could I have worded it better? Sure, but your argument is still fundamentally flawed.
@DavidRichardson153 That's what I'm saying. You don't get exact values in this case when using the ideal gas law. You can only make broad qualitative comments. When you plug in the values for this experiment you get a final pressure that is way too high because condensation plays a much bigger role than just the gas cooling without condensing. You get closer to the real result if you assume that all the steam turns into liquid water with no vapor pressure. Almost vacuum is closer to complete vacuum than to moderately reduced pressure
first one does not collapsed because it was cooling to SLOW. Not only a temp-gradient matters, but a time TOO !
Oceangate needs a tank car
9:09 "the outside casing...".
There's an inside one too?
Can one now bring them back to original shape applying positive pressure from inside?
Ok, you are drinking water through a straw, what force is getting the water into your mouth?
Is the lower pressure in your mouth ‘sucking’ the water into your mouth, or is the higher outside pressure pushing the water into your mouth?
I say the water is being pushed into your mouth.
That principle is what is going on here.
The outside pressure is crushing the vessel.
In the time it took you to write that paragraph you could have just Google'd it.
This is not vacuum violence, this is our atmosphere violence pressing on empty chamber :)
8:42 The cameraman jumped 😆
Those oil drums had over 12 tons of force pushing in on them when they collapsed.
The rail car, by my quick math, has 325,000 square inches on its exterior surface. At 16” Hg (8 psi) vacuum that is 2,600,000 pounds of force pushing in. Or 1300 tons.
This should be fun…
The ton is not a unit of force, neither is the pound.
@@thedubwhisperer2157You would be wrong on both counts.
@@rickschlosser6793 Please explain. I understand these both to be units of mass, and that pound-force and ton force are the standard units of force in the Imperial system of units.
I am an SI Briton, so I might have it wrong! We have mass in kg, and both weight and force in Newtons; kg.m/s^2.
@@thedubwhisperer2157You ever see or hear comparison of pressure underwater like "an elephant on top of of you ". Well, that's because they are very similar force. Other than the unit of pressure (Bar), the force can only be approximated using weight units because it is the only other unit with a "pushing" force. But yeah it is often use as "pounds per square inch" and you can pretty much replace pounds with other units for weight (tons, kg, grams) because that is the only way it will makes sense to us. Another way of looking at it is this: imagine a needle standing on your palm. Just with its own weight, it won't puncture you. But just imagine if you can put an elephant on top of it. The entire weight of that elephant, average of 12k pounds, is concentrated on that point. This is also why Superman can't lift a building without it crumbling or him just going thru that bulding the way that needle will pass thru your palm. Batman can only lift a building if that building is made of entirely solid material and that that poinf it is just a cube of solid object and if is softer than Superman's hand he will still go thru it.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 You would be correct on both counts. This btw. is the a good example of what happens when one learns middle-aged imperial units instead of modern SI units.
This was one of my favourite episodes after the cement truck
Cement truck is overrated. It was just loud.
The problems with this experiment:
1. Failed to recreate the original conditions where the myth comes from. In the golden age of the Soviet Union, they used to wash train carts with steaming water to melt the frost. This means they were operating under enviromental solid water temperature and a cart covered by an ice crust.
2. Modern tanks are better at resisting atm implosions, even without the relief valve.
Seen the results of a full size tank car being drained when they forgot to open the vent. Total collapse and also so much running gear damage it couldn't be pulled away on the rails. Had to be cut up and towed away as scrap.
Science says it should collapse.
Engineers: Hold my beer, we will over engineer it.
Part 2: The guys pump compressed air into the tank to make it pop back into shape.
I wouldnt say busted. as they never took into account the ambient air temperature in the myth. If it was a cold day when the tank was being steam cleaned. Along with the rain. It could have cooled down faster perhaps?
Or maybe it happened in winter
Awesome! But why don't they do some calculations and simulations alongside the initial testings? It would provide them with so much more useful information.
Damn you science!
The tanker is not an Echo chamber but a reverb chamber
This guy guitars. Unlike Adam Unsavage
@@majortom4543
Oceangate was over 5000psi this is around 14psi
I don't know what has happened to Jamie but I can easily crush an egg in my hands without giving it a tiny crack on a frying pan first. I suppose what he meant to say was that if you hold an egg at the top and bottom, between your fingers, then you will not be able to break the egg, but if you hold it on the sides of the egg breaking it becomes easy.
Stockton Mush: "Hold my beer!"
😂 you did not 😂 whahaha
@CerberaSagaris Too soon?
Thought not 🤣
*Crush
@@allanshpeley4284 First he got the crush. Then he became mush.
9:29 😂 the camera man shit a brick 😂😂
But it didn't seem to fail at the point where the block was dropped. How so ?
It does not make any sense that higher temperature would make it a) take longer to cool down, b) take longer, and c) have a more violent collapse. All of that is the variability of the barrel in question... do multiples side-by-side of this and you'd find that out. But, these guys "do science" all the time, I've never caught them thinking like a scientist. If you start at a higher temperature the laws of thermodynamics say it will cool faster. If it cools faster the only way it could take longer is if the vessel held up more. If the collapse was more violent, it was because the vessel held up longer. It is *truly cinematic* that they "discover" they need the highest starting temperature possible. If I'm wrong, if it was was a genuine discovery, that after testing they determined the highest starting temperature would give them the most pressure differential, then they truly are unconscionably blithering (very popular) idiots.
How much is the total cost including cleaning up?
No one's going to mention the "scale model" has flat ends and the real tanker has hemispherical? Fun vid, regardless.
OceAngate guy need to see this!
Name this episode "Anticipointment"
99% build up, and while the result is cool, it was still very anti climactic! Even with the ads this should have been 15 minutes tops!
11:48 of course J hatman(i cant spell his last name) is a exponential curve guy. Puts so much in perspective
I'd like to see this with vacuum created by draining the contents to a low laying reservoir. (For water it would need to be 10 m below the drainage tap. Would need vauum stable drainage hoses, though.
It's also possible to cause a collapse to a container with a vacuum by throwing stones at it. While it withstands the pressure when untouched, a stone can be the disturbance that can crush the last bit of structural integrity.
I don't think it would work on these tanks though. Too much built-in safety reserves.
I liked the video just for Adams sound over
This test would work better if done in North Dakota at winter time.
"The only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down" - From a Titanic Tale 2012
But Ocean Gate 💀
Fun fact: there’s no such thing as “negative pressure.”
Yes there is if you take your pressure datum (zero) at ambient. Very widely used in engineering.
nothing sucks, everything blows
@@marionbloom1218 are you sure about that? 😂
marionbloom is absolutely correct. Both psia and psig are widely used, so we can record 'negative pressure' if using psig.
@@Zreknarf It just blew from the ouside in?
Why didn't you do that with normal, everyday objects like a lighter or a thermos (especially with double wall)?
That's why those containers don't have corners. Try sinking it in deep water.
so did they tried to put it back in shape¿? filled with water and detonating a charge inside?¿
now this puts the Titan Submersible implosion into perspective. instant death.
These guys seem to miss the basics of some of their experiments. For a start, the pressure differential is equal to two atmospheres, or in other terms, the same as submerging a sealed, empty container to a depth of 10 metres. Ever seen a submarine? I know they have all sorts of strengthening to prevent implosions, , but they can dive to a hell of a lot deeper than 10 metres. So why on earth did they expect a cylindrical vessel to fail at only 2 atmospheres?
Also,at 21.10, when the steel drums failed, you can see Jaime’s reaction time. There is a discernible delay in his reaction after the collapse. So if you ever wondered about the people who died on the Oceangate Titan, it shows that the implosion was over before there was any recognition of it happening.
I wonder if this happened to the Titan sub , because if they were using heat in the sub because it was cold down there, if the heat stopped working this can happen
😂❤😂❤😂
They should've done it under sea level, like in the dead sea, where the atmospheric pressure is higher at.1.05 ATM.
Oceangate tried their own experiment. Rumours have it, they succeeded 😂
mithbusters would have been a world hit even more, if you guys would like each other. its so obvious...
*mithbustArs
@allanshpeley4284 my english is not good enough to get your joke i guess.... can you explain?
It was a tipo though.
Gonna buy an old tanker car. Convert it into a sub and take people to the titanic!