Thanks to @SteveMould for battling this out with me! Every time I feel I know something a debate like this shatters some of my thoughts and makes me think harder. Make sure to check Steve's first video: th-cam.com/video/qTLR7FwXUU4/w-d-xo.html and NOW his second video: th-cam.com/video/bcsb1xAv7XA/w-d-xo.html that is way more convincing! Does it mean I may lose my 10000 cents?! Eh, it is for science so that's fine. But I haven't given up just yet!
Loved both explanations but your force analysis seems to be correct compared to Steve's. To mention the upward force against gravitational force is very important. Also your 2D explanation just won the whole debate. It was a genius way of explaining it. As Persians say: kheyli ghashang tozih dadi 😄
Your both wrong, its the law of inertia. As these chains have the mass it requires to keep moving. Give me the 10000 cents instead, I am so poor I din't had a real lunch for years! :(
@@bruggetje I don't think that is the case inertia would apply in the siphoning effect because the chain is at a higher starting point than the end point that is lower but there has to be some kind of compensation from 0 energy at normal gravity and something moving faster than gravity read my comment hopefully it will make sense.
I'm with you. Although I feel that the pushup effect would actually make the Mould Effect be self starting rather than where he had to create the original loop that the Mehdi constant goes through.
Eyy! All my favourite science tubers in one place. Veritasium, Medlife, Mould, Mehdi. All we are missing now are Discount Thor (sorry, Kyle!) and Tom Scott.
Piggybacking on your comment here but I clicked Like. The explanation is very simple and everyone seems to have missed it. The only forces that need to be considered are gravity and the tension in the chain. To work well the phenomenon requires a chain without stiffness that is nearly frictionless in motion but lumpy enough to prevent transmitting tension through the pile in the beaker. The fountain effect is then an inevitable result of the chain falling. The speed of the moving part of the chain is the same throughout its length except where it is starting to rise and unwinding from the pile. As it starts to fall it accelerates and the tension pulling the chain in the beaker is the weight of the falling chain below the level of the pile. This means that before it reaches the floor the force pulling the chain upwards out of the beaker is many times more than the weight of chain being pulled, so it accelerates upwards very rapidly and cannot change direction quickly enough to avoid rising above the rim. The only forces acting on the chain as it rises are gravity and tension, which acts along the chain. The tension is much greater than gravity and only acts downwards on the part of the chain that has passed the peak. The idea of the beaker and chain pile providing a force to push the chain upwards is obvious nonsense. All it does is stop the chain falling through the bottom; a stationary body does not accelerate another body upwards except in bouncing. When other types of chain fail to produce fountains it is because the resistances to motion slow them down too much.
@@solchapeau6343 1 second of unescapable inattention is still one full second that anything can happen. He's not wrong, but the probability doesnt change much in a measurable way, just theoretical.
What would happen if you did this experiment at 500m meters above sea level, the results would be different because of the gravitational force of earth acting on the chain.
Something else you probably don't know exists is indoor plumbing. It's quite common in the Western world, but mostly unknown in the Indian subcontinent.
"Well, it's a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer I'm overqualified." This line killed me as a fellow electrical engineer :D. You probably just earned many haters Mehdi.
11:28 shows a perfect "Mould effect" loop in Steve's clip with the rigid linked chain. The effect is smaller than with the beaded chain but still very much there. It does seem to "reset" whenever the chain snags and takes a bundle of tangled chain over all at once.
I noticed the same thing. It was clearly exhibiting the effect, but it kept appearing and disappearing as the chain slowed down and sped up from the links not being able to glide across each other.
We saw this once happen on a tanker. The winch mechanism broke, and the anchor dropped so fast that the chain was whipping on the deck. The chain is massive and had so much weight it tore pieces of metal off around the hole where it normally comes out.
Pretty surprised at how messy that Cambridge study was. Why on earth would they use different bowls and introduce new variables? I'm not even a scientist and know this is a bad thing to do in research
Downright unscientific. Those guys started with a preconceived result and worked backward force fit the data to a hypothesis. Good science involves challenging your hypothesis to the max to find the result that fits the data.
As a scientist I can confirm that the Cambridge study is exactly how 90% of the modern institution of science operates. You can't put being right first when you need to publish to keep your job.
I looked away for a second when you said, "The Rectifier!". My stupidly dumb brain heard, "The Rectum Fire!". Two VERY different things. You have one of my absolute favorite channels on TH-cam. Thanks for teaching me so much!
It's way better than the one in my house. I've got pipes in the wall and a big central pump, but they only provide suction. The hose is external and I have to lug the entire thing all over the house. I used it for a while when I first moved in but now I've gone back to using a normal vacuum.
Central vacuum systems are nothing new. They're seen more in commercial buildings than residential homes. If you want a home with central vacuuming, you're better off having it installed during construction as it can be a pretty pricey upgrade to tear open the drywall and run pipes for it.
@@ThisNameWasntTaken There are many different versions. The cheapest "central vacuum cleaner" (as they're called here in Scandinavia where these were almost standard in every house built in the 80's) you turned on with a switch (like a lamp). Others have a simple microswitch in the lid/hatch, or just some pins in the lid that lets the electronics know it's been opened. There are also wireless variants that via radio signals to start the vacuum, either automatic or manually. Today they aren't common because they are much more expensive to install than buying a standard vacuum cleaner, and when they break many just buy a new much cheaper vacuum cleaner instead of repairing the central one. Industrial variants are way beefier with 3-phase motors and frequency control so that several hoses can be active at the same time. For home usage though it's not worth the installation cost, although modern ones with HEPA filters doesn't require an outlet hole to be drilled in an exterior wall to let the air out since they sufficiently clean the air to be let back into the house. Fun fact: many kids toys got "disappeared" when they were playing next to these wall outlets and curiosity made them lifting the lid... Anything close to these outlets and was small enough vanished - and mum/dad had to go on a retrieval mission in the big bag of dust and nasties... ;)
"There is a small force of gravity acting on the short length of chain. Let's ignore that. Let's also ignore friction for now." Spoken like a true physicist.
@@jakx2ob physics put everything on paper, they want to model the reality as best as possible. Engineers put only what they need and make more approximations, they want to model the reality as simple as possible, as long as the result is within an error margin. PS: Mehdi is an electrical engineer, I am an automation engineer.
I don't know you personally, but I love ya Mehdi. You are one of my favorite humans. I hope you continue to find happiness in educating all of us, because you are damned good at it. Thank you for teaching us, and having a great sense of humor while doing so lol
I watched Steve's video first. He completely convinced me. Then I watched Mehdi's video. He also completely convinced me. So if I had to vote I'd be 50.1% for Mehdi and 49.9% for Steve. Sorry, Steve.
getting down in this reply section in particular just further makes me feel like this video is really owned by two youtube channels... Furthermore to watch this discussion vid feels friendlier than on veritasium's more formal feel of him discussing with that other person that agreed on a total 10,000 buckos bet
You see this effect on a much larger scale when ships drop their anchor. The chain starts to snake horizontally as the large anchor drops. As if the chain were solid at the point of the turns
Now I want to see a video of this happening! I must go search TH-cam for videos of ships dropping anchor now... Unless you have a suggested video to save me countless hours LOL
Really depens on what your doing computer engineer here (about 85% the same as a ee) its like saying remeber wires have resistance and to factor that in to your work. The real solution is to greatly oversize the wires. Remeber engineers can sometimes be lazy by nature and usally unless your working on something specfic youll choose a design that will negate friction/ parts designed for that load and then you'll just frogot about it. (Untill something is extremely hot or wareing to fast cause you missed something d'oh lol) Edit: just to cover my ass no offence to any tribologists out there. Didn't even know what that was till the above comment. I do hate how speclized our trades have become. Its all very similar math in the end.
As a mechanical and electrical engineer with background in both fields, I agree. Mechanical engineers can forget the forest for the trees. If electrical engineers forget, they get shocked into remembering.
@@FilmFlam-8008 I feel that MechEs are probably all forest and less about the specific trees. They get inundated with so much general, broad knowledge that much of the specialized stuff is pushed off to engineering specializations or to technical electives in grad school.
@ElectroBOOM you can also see this effect using a rope going over an edge aswell given enough velocity. So in reality this is just essentially a basic trajectory problem (which is exactly how you explained it anyways) where each point of the chain leaving the cup has a slightly faster initial velocity allowing that point to hit a higher trajectory.
@@sammysam3136 fusion reactor cant meltdown, and a nuclear meltdown will leave long lasting live problems and nuclear waste, radioactivity and other crap..
To me it seems related to the mechanics of a whip, this change in direction looks like wave traveleling down the line (actually up in this context), like when you make waves in a rope
it is that effect. just that a whip is made in such a way that those forces are multiplied at the tip for other reasons such as decrease in mass ant etc
My take about the forces: the chain has to do a sharp turn, but it resists it, it wants to stay more or less straight, so it springs a bit back, taking away some energy that was applied by the pull of gravity (or something else). This is why the regular chain doesn't work that well, it cannot spring much, only when there is sufficient tension. Starting from the bucket, there is a force pulling the chain up and at the same time giving it some angular momentum, at the peak it has turn horizontally and then down, in the opposite direction of the first pull. This is identical to giving a strong up and down pull on a rope, you get a wave in the same shape, like a pulse.
But the curve in the 2d model moves in the direction it's being pulled, however the Mould affect causes the chain to move in the opposite direction it's being pulled. Therefore the experiments he did, the Mould effect wasn't happening, because if it was, the curve in the chain would move to the right in the opposite direction of the force, but it doesn't
at 10:40 when he pulls the chain, the curve moves to the left consistently throught the time the force is acting on it, the same direction as the force. But when the experiment is done in the glass cup, the curve in the chain chain goes up, in the opposite direction to the force pulling downwards, so therefore the Mould affect doesn't occur in the 2D model at 10:40
Thank you guys for saving the internet. Everytime I think it is a festering sore of what is worst in humans, people like this remind me why the internet and connectivity amongst us all is a good thing.
"At home we have a central vacuum system with the hose inside the wall." Wait... what? I think I've just come across something that perplexes me more than the Mould effect.
A lot of upper class houses in the Midwest have something similar. I prefer a regular vacuum personally, but it's nice for quick clean ups. My friend had one growing up.
That was common for the first vacuum cleaners like 100 years ago but I never imagined it still would exist in a place other than a museum! I was perplex!
Some of the house in the NA have these and they all connect to a massive vacuum pump in the gurage or the basement. Usually it's just ports installed in the wall where you can attach a massive hose.
I've seen them before but not with an integrated hose, just the connection in the wall where you plug a hose in. Big vacuum machine is down in the basement.
Excellent! Even if you are just an electronical engineer. You are verifying my belief that this was an example of momentum trying to keep a moving object moving in the same direction.
@@laundromast it is the mould effect in extreme conditions :) it does not need to be a chain, a chain simply makes it easier to achieve at lower speeds, it is the very same thing mehdi shows on the floor idk what the other guy posted, so i figured i'd at least put an on-topic yt link up... did you even watch it?
Mehdi, the experimentation you have done here is well-designed, beautifully executed, and deeply informative. A great many scientists in academia and industry could learn valuable lessons on how to analyze difficult problems efficiently just by watching your video. I took an interest in the chain fountain before your debate with Steve Mould came up, and had reluctantly intended to do a short video for his August 2021 contest to prove how the Royal Academy experiment was experimentally sloppy and could be disproven by attaching lead weights to fishing line. Then I saw your video and exclaimed to my wife, "This fellow has already experimented, beautifully! I don't have to buy all those stupid lead weights!" Derek Muller, to me Mehdi should at least be considered for one of your August 2021 video contest prizes for this video, even if this video as a whole is too long to meet the rules. Mehdi's experimental work here reminded me of your own similarly excellent experimental approach to uncovering why wind moving across a fixed surface is _always_ a power source, regardless of how some device that accesses that power is moving relative to either of the surfaces. Regarding one amusing way to understand why the chain fountain manages to defy gravity, here's the title of a paper I'm writing for my tarxiv.org website: "On Mould's Accidental Implementation of the Goddard Antigravity Engine." Yes, Virginia, centrifugal forces are real in practice, no matter how much the Royal Academy may fume about "silly" engineers using this mathematically very-well-defined pseudo force as a handy way to summarize the effects of linear momentum in systems under tension. Along those lines, Mehdi, I'm pretty sure your constant is real and provides an insight into the dynamics of such systems, but that's only a suspicion at this point. There also exists a far more powerful and generic model for what Steve Mould has uncovered, which for lack of any existing phrase I'm aware of I'll invent a new phrase: a dynamic standing wave (DSW), in which the medium is in motion and the observer is in the same frame of motion as the dynamic wave. Specifically, the Mould chain fountain is a dispersion-suppressed soliton as viewed from the same frame of motion as the soliton. As Steve Mould has beautifully shown in some of his videos, DSWs also form much more complex shapes such as helices. This makes perfect sense from a dynamic standing wave perspective since it's easy to create helical waves in chains. All the Mould mechanism is doing is allowing the observer to "move with" those helical waves and see them as if they were standing still. With the right chain materials, drivers (e.g., the high-speed equivalent of an escalator loop), and careful tweaking of momentum inputs from various directions, it should be possible to create arbitrarily complex stable and metastable DSW waveforms, though chromatic dispersion will impose some limits on finer details. At least some non-trivial applications of DSWs are likely since, if nothing else, systems that support a rich repertoire of metastable states tend to lead to new, unexpected applications in both mechanics and information processing. Given that chain physics has been a "mature" discipline for centuries, I am truly surprised that the possibility of dynamic standing waves in moving chains was never noticed before Mould's experiment. On the other hand, I've certainly seen this same kind of "familiarity blindness" in play in other areas, especially ones where technology is moving quickly (e.g., packet-switching networks). Here, though, the oversight appears to be due to pure familiarity blindness without progress issues: Everyone assumed chain motions to be "solved" and so never bothered to look. So, kudos to Steve Mould and Mehdi Sadaghdar! Your brilliant experimental work may well have created a whole new area of research.
Dude, I'm happy enough to read long comments, but please break it up into paragraphs, this is next to impossible to read without putting in a ton of effort to keep track of where the sentence continues. I keep reading the same line twice trying to figure out where the next one starts, and I think I'm just going to stop at the halfway mark because I shouldn't have to put this much effort into reading a comment. It could be 15x the length and still be easier to read if it were broken up properly...
@@InitialDreadlywow, good reminder, thanks! I'll fix this. I'm usually good about breaking everything up into paragraphs, so I was shocked when I saw this old comment. Formatting glitch?
I think the truth lies between these two. I guess that the lever effect is just adding to the force explained in this video, making these kinds of chains just great for this experiment.
I think that neither explanation is entirely correct, but steve's is closer to the truth. as you can see with the ball chain in a jar, the arc of the chain keeps growing (I believe that this is due to the added force that was discussed in Steve's video), but in this video you can see that it stays the same size when the chain is spaced out. Electroboom has effectively demonstrated why many chains are self siphoning, but only ball chains actually have a growing arc, and this hasn't really been discussed in this video. I would argue that the reason that the different kinds of chains keep banging against the side of the jar is because they aren't getting the added force that the ball chain gives from its leverage. Steve actually showed some round beads on a string in his video that were quite similar to a ball chain, but have a string connecting them, not metal rods. These beads are self siphoning and you'd think they'd have the growing ark if Electroboom's explaination was correct, because they don't seem to have much friction, but they're not. The only thing we've really found that has a growing ark is the ball chain and I think it's because they have very unique properties that have been explained much better than I could by Steve. Feel free to disagree, I'm probably wrong at least once in this comment.
I think its pretty simple. Its just the arc of a whip thats traveling at the velocity of the falling chain. It looks like it stays at the top but its actually a whip arc traveling throughout the entire length of the chain, which is constantly being pulled faster and faster by gravity, which makes the arc larger and larger as the velocity increases. There you have it, now its called the Svenson effect.
When I saw Mould's video on his effect I was coincidentally swinging a towel to remove dust and realized it also seems to have a momentum in the direction opposite to where I swung it. Your explanation makes a lot more sense, and the rod/lever argument seems a lot like "assume spherical cow" level cheating.
the overly complicated "lever" explanation always just felt wrong. It certainly looks like a momentum related phenomenon. I am siding with you on this one.
That's the way i always thought it worked, didn't think about it either, it just feels natural. That doesn't necessarily make it true though but still. This also works with rope so the ''leverage'' explanation seems completely wrong.
this is a very logical explanation. i honestly didnt think that this needed to be explained. i could figure that out without even reading a paper on this
I’m with you on this one. The chain in the cup is being lifted up by the failing chain, therefore it has momentum. It then has to transition from upwards, to sideways and then to downward, in an arc.
I'm with you on this one. Funny that Mehdi mentions "infinite acceleration" because this is kind of the reason. If things could change their acceleration infinitely fast then the chain wouldn't need the loop to transition through all the different vectors of the momentum. I've always thought everyone was over-thinking this. Shouldn't there be a relationship between the mass of each link (and therefor its momentum) and the height of the chain? And wouldn't testing different masses and loop heights provide the proof? Or would the higher mass of a heavier links cancel out its greater momentum (and therefore any height increase in the loop ) against gravity?
I know science isn't a 'voting' sort of thing, but I like your explanation much better. A lot of such effects are explained (such as your vacuum hose horizontally on the floor) The 'whipping' as the tail end spins around the loop also is more violent, the longer and faster it goes (suggesting higher tension forces). Also the explanation about fountains run from greater heights has higher tension forces. Steve found this when his chain broke from the crane-drop fountain. Obviously as more and more chain fell, the tensions increased, causing the 'fountain' loop to go higher, until a link failed from high tension.
Brilliant video as always, though I'm sad you didn't shock yourself. Couldn't you have stuck the chain into the mains or something?! I have a thought about the horizontal experiment you do with the spaced out rows of chain (this is copy/paste from my reply to you in the comments on my video!): I don't believe you demonstrate the chain fountain here. The arc never gets "higher" than where it started 10:17 (I put "higher" in speech marks because the experiment is horizontal, but you know what I mean - "higher" means "to the right" in the case of your experiment). Yes, the loop gets longer when measured from the top of the pile (because the top of the pile moves to the left, but that's just how chains behave, once you're in steady state the chain will just flow through whatever shape it has. The fact that the peak of the loop actually moves "down" (to the left) in your experiment is probably due to friction and due to the fact that you don't start in steady state. The same is true for the experiment you do off the whiteboard 15:56. You lift it up before pulling it down. It's already up to speed by the time you let go and so almost steady state - the chain then just flows through the loop you gave it. It doesn't rise any higher than that. I would be convinced that I was wrong if you could show, with spaced out beads, the fountain rising after you let go.
Sticking chain in outlet would mess with space-time continuum! You say "the chain will just flow through whatever shape it has" like it is much different than the Mould effect. But the Mould effect is just that, conservation of momentum and that's why the chain tends not to change shape. In my 2D test the fact that the loop is getting larger should be proof enough, and perhaps I could convince you the chain would rise "higher" if I could run faster! In my test friction is always against the motion of the chain in any direction. And I'm pretty sure my last white board test would start to rise on its own too if I had a much longer chain and higher drop AND a way to make sure those pesky strings don't tangle! Even in my 2D tests the chain lifted itself off the ground if you look closely. Eh... maybe we should revisit this with a bunch of new tests!!
16:01 basically disproves Steve's theory in a single test for me. I find your explanation way more convincing, but whoever is right, its awesome to see these science battles. Learning a lot from it!
It doesnt rise in that test though, it only conserves the height it had with the starting throw. Mould effect is where it keeps rising as long as the chain is dropping, the effect that this video argues for only conserves the existing path, which we can also see in all the sideways drags. It never goes over its original point, it only conserves the original path (and even slowly loses height)
@@jahrazzjahrazz8858 The ultimate rise is based on the pull from gravity, like a fluid height problem. He would need a longer chain to establish where equilibrium actually occurs. The point of that experiment was to validate the lever assumption.
@@FilmFlam-8008 idk i think a better test would be to have a motor or something with a much more constant speed pull it to elimnate one more possible factor that might be causing a similiar but diffrent effect.
This entire chain of videos-pun entirely intentional-makes me think of how scientists of previous, pre-TH-cam times would hash out such disputes, often to the benefit of science. Now we ALL get to be a part of it! I love this!
When I first saw this effect I imagined it was a stationary wave. Similar to when you flick a wave down a rope, except instead of the wave travelling down the rope, the wave is stationary and the chain travelled around the wave.
The point at 3:14 helped me understand it so much better! Funny that the guy arguing against the counter-force helps me understand it better than the one arguing for it!
after seeing the moulds video first, it took seconds to see what was going on and after watching this video my exact thoughts were explained how i saw them to be. i vote you have won your lunch money.
Central vacuum cleaners were in fact, how the thing started after it was invented - it was considered unhealthy back then - and it still is - to have all this dust around that passes the filter and makes vacuuming a house the best source of dust keeping you busy.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 I mean shouldn't it just be a compressor and filter in the garage or somewhere? 3 or 4 wires for the motor, disconnect, all that. Couple wires per "station" to control solenoids, also in the garage? Not too bad. All the "magic" happens inside the vacuum itself's wiring? Then again I've never seen one of these in my life so idk.
@@nyogthatheone4743 well he's talking about having to work around all the pipe,and retractable hosing. Let's say you have to wire a house with plumbing,HVAC,and a central vacuum already installed,it can be very hard to work around everything.
My friend has one in his house. The suction motor and fan exhaust are downstairs, along with a huge dust container and filter system. The only thing you hear is the sound of air rushing in to the tool. There's also a special plugin for electric power to the beater bar in the tool. When you're done, unplug the electronics and you're done.
it took me two years but if you look at his whiteboard really closely, you can see some traces of drawn and earsed arrows. There are also some tiny gaps between the arrows showing his retries for a good clip.
I absolutely love being witness to scientific discussion like this in an open forum, just like the veritasium video, that's how science should be, open knowledge.
I am inclined to agree... though the physics of wave propagation along a string or chain May itself be complex, I have no doubt that this is in fact exactly what is happening. peace.
Hey electroboom, it's the whip mechanic, while whipping a whip it'll curl until the end breaks the sound barrier causing the sound, it's a sin wave in natural form
@@alialiei249 No one else I have _ever known,_ in my entire life, has shared that name. Forgive me, oh Mighty Intellect, for not knowing how to spell it, as I shall forgive you for using absolutely zero grammar.
Actually it's funny because i think both explanation might be kinda true . The conservation of momentum and balancing of force might be the reason why an thing like that could occur and the leverage effect is what allow for change and friction to be ignored . I guess only if we CAN ignore friction we can have an answer
This was the same thought I had. The greater the drop the longer gravity has to affect it, the higher force pulling through the chain, but also the greater velocity, throwing the chain up and thus higher it goes before curling back down.
Fun fact, Circuits symbols are often used in mechanics and fluids to show mechanical systems lol. So with the literal floor being the lowest point of potential energy in the system, he was actually correct in using the ground symbol.
this effect can also occur when using something other than a chain, such as a simple rope. in fact if we think of the whip, its "snap" is a concentrate of this effect, that is the abrupt transition between the drag force and the opposite one.
Already posted this on Steve's video but thought I should post it here as well: I would think that you can approximate the fountain with a pulley. Meaning tension on one end is equal to tension on the other end. When the "pulley" gets going the force you have on the descent is equal to the mass of the chain on the descent times g, so, very small. As more beads get pulled form the upwards to the downwards the mass on that ends increases, which in turn increases the tension. As tension increases on the descent due to mass, tension on the ascent needs to be equal. Thus pulling the beads higher and higher before they curve. This would also lead me to theorise that if your chain hits the ground and you still have beads left, your Apex will stay exactly where it is until it finishes spooling out. The "pulley" idea is also supported by your statement regarding the max bend radius the chain has creating the rigid body.
@@psun256 Yeah, and from time to time some entanglement inside the container give a pull that bring back down the jumping part, and it have to restart raising the speed again till the next entanglement
I was an idiot and watched Steve's video first and was almost drainwashed into forgetting my electrical training. Thanks for reminding me of the mechanical engineering failure in his argument.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to @SteveMould for battling this out with me! Every time I feel I know something a debate like this shatters some of my thoughts and makes me think harder. Make sure to check Steve's first video: th-cam.com/video/qTLR7FwXUU4/w-d-xo.html and NOW his second video: th-cam.com/video/bcsb1xAv7XA/w-d-xo.html that is way more convincing! Does it mean I may lose my 10000 cents?! Eh, it is for science so that's fine. But I haven't given up just yet!
You are right on the timing read my comment! Sorry for all the edits I had to keep fixing it!
Loved both explanations but your force analysis seems to be correct compared to Steve's. To mention the upward force against gravitational force is very important. Also your 2D explanation just won the whole debate. It was a genius way of explaining it. As Persians say: kheyli ghashang tozih dadi 😄
I love debates like this for this reason. I wish more people would argue with me!
Your both wrong, its the law of inertia. As these chains have the mass it requires to keep moving. Give me the 10000 cents instead, I am so poor I din't had a real lunch for years! :(
@@bruggetje I don't think that is the case inertia would apply in the siphoning effect because the chain is at a higher starting point than the end point that is lower but there has to be some kind of compensation from 0 energy at normal gravity and something moving faster than gravity read my comment hopefully it will make sense.
Ngl this is pretty convincing
Finally
Do a vid too 🤣
Do a video on it pretty please
Just wait, my boy is coming for your magical wind car...
Ayy veritasium
Steve is my boi but I'm Team Mehdi on this one. I hereby rename it the Mouldy Boom.
I'm with you. Although I feel that the pushup effect would actually make the Mould Effect be self starting rather than where he had to create the original loop that the Mehdi constant goes through.
Eyy! All my favourite science tubers in one place. Veritasium, Medlife, Mould, Mehdi. All we are missing now are Discount Thor (sorry, Kyle!) and Tom Scott.
+1 I think Mehdi's got this...
that the channels I follow all interact is either enjoyable coincidence, or the Algorithm messing with my life. Either way - more please :D
You just said that because you wanted to make a pun
"It's a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer I'm over qualified," had me in stitches.
hhhh me to
Its true, though.
@@FelonyVideos yes %100
...But Whatever !
Fucking love this
“Well its a mechanical issue so as an Electrical Engineer I am overqualified” is my favorite quote
It's these moments when I remember to give it a like.
Piggybacking on your comment here but I clicked Like.
The explanation is very simple and everyone seems to have missed it. The only forces that need to be considered are gravity and the tension in the chain.
To work well the phenomenon requires a chain without stiffness that is nearly frictionless in motion but lumpy enough to prevent transmitting tension through the pile in the beaker. The fountain effect is then an inevitable result of the chain falling.
The speed of the moving part of the chain is the same throughout its length except where it is starting to rise and unwinding from the pile. As it starts to fall it accelerates and the tension pulling the chain in the beaker is the weight of the falling chain below the level of the pile. This means that before it reaches the floor the force pulling the chain upwards out of the beaker is many times more than the weight of chain being pulled, so it accelerates upwards very rapidly and cannot change direction quickly enough to avoid rising above the rim. The only forces acting on the chain as it rises are gravity and tension, which acts along the chain. The tension is much greater than gravity and only acts downwards on the part of the chain that has passed the peak.
The idea of the beaker and chain pile providing a force to push the chain upwards is obvious nonsense. All it does is stop the chain falling through the bottom; a stationary body does not accelerate another body upwards except in bouncing.
When other types of chain fail to produce fountains it is because the resistances to motion slow them down too much.
ok
i'm offended
I lol'd hard! 🤣
"It's a mechanical problem so as an Electrical Engineer I'm over qualified" is probably the best thing I've ever heard.
As an electrical engineer, Im in stitches :D
same note ha ha since i am electrical engineer too lol
As an EE, I feel rectified :3
Electrical engineers unite!
Even us mechanical engineers enjoyed that sarcasm
Alright ElectroBOOM, I think you’re now ready to fight Veritasium...
Veritasium once said that if you sneeze while driving you'd very likely crash your car. Yet that has never happened.
@@solchapeau6343 1 second of unescapable inattention is still one full second that anything can happen. He's not wrong, but the probability doesnt change much in a measurable way, just theoretical.
@@solchapeau6343 I mean the chances are low but never 0
What would happen if you did this experiment at 500m meters above sea level, the results would be different because of the gravitational force of earth acting on the chain.
lol
"It's a mechanical problem. So, as an Electrical Engineer, I'm overqualified." 🤣
He is right and you all know it :D
That was the first thing that I learned in electrotechnics.
As a mechanical engineer, this is accurate.
Fun fact: There are only 2 types of engineers. Electrical Engineers and those who weren't smart enough to be electrical!
That was funny, incorrect but really funny
I literally never know a centeral vacuum system exsisted, that's so cool!
me too. and now that sequence in "it takes two" makes so much more sense lol
Something else you probably don't know exists is indoor plumbing. It's quite common in the Western world, but mostly unknown in the Indian subcontinent.
@@morpheus6749 lmfao are you ok? Well probably not. Anyway I am from Australia 🦘 not sure you know where that is tho. Good luck finding it on a map 👍
@@morpheus6749 how did you make this into a race thing, is everything ok at home?
@@aidanhudson4213 Says the guy that just brought race into a non-race related topic. Say, aren't you due at that ANTIFA burn-fest?
Practical demonstrations instead of formulas, LOVE IT!
He is a different kind
I might be wrong, but it seems like it's your first comment on your channel (you have never commented from this channel before)
@@BartiX-on4wn I might be wrong, but it seems like shorts are short pants (pants that have been made shorter)
@@astronichols1900 I might be wrong, but it seems like you've beaten me (you used a good argument)
I mean, you need both ultimately.
"Well, it's a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer I'm overqualified." This line killed me as a fellow electrical engineer :D. You probably just earned many haters Mehdi.
Love it nonetheless lmao
thats why i went for mechatronic
as someone who wants to go into mechanical engineering I love and hate that, mostly love
Nah, as an ME I enjoyed this part of the video the most.
electroboom born overqualified!!
when he didn't zap himself, you know he's serious
He came so close at 13:37
lol
I thought for sure he was gonna find a way to zap himself with the battery
No zap, I thought I’d be disappointed.
This was a great video!
I love the way he says “negligible” so much that I’ve started saying it that way. Feels much better
11:28 shows a perfect "Mould effect" loop in Steve's clip with the rigid linked chain. The effect is smaller than with the beaded chain but still very much there. It does seem to "reset" whenever the chain snags and takes a bundle of tangled chain over all at once.
Totally agree. Even in Steve’s video it’s there. I was wondering if he was blind or just ignoring it.
@@truthsmiles Might be a bit of confirmation bias or maybe he didn't watch the video so the angle he was viewing from was the problem.
I noticed the same thing. It was clearly exhibiting the effect, but it kept appearing and disappearing as the chain slowed down and sped up from the links not being able to glide across each other.
@@MarcusTheDorkus And, wouldn't the leverage from the rigid links Increase the amount of rise, if the leverage against the surface was a major factor?
1:40 "It's a mechanical problem so as an electrical engineer I'm over qualified" loving it
I’ve never felt so insulted in my life
hahahehahehahehahaha
Hilarious!
you've explained this well.
I hope Mehdi win
Well trained
palonsinger
We saw this once happen on a tanker. The winch mechanism broke, and the anchor dropped so fast that the chain was whipping on the deck. The chain is massive and had so much weight it tore pieces of metal off around the hole where it normally comes out.
“Mehdi constant” sounds pretty cool, that should be the official term.
Trouble is, 80% of People would spell the name wrong.
Medi Constant is still pretty cool
thought the same once he said it
@@kain0m Hopefully no one mentions "Medhi" and spawns in a monster...
Sadaghdar’s constant
I want to see the behind-the-scenes footage of Medhi running down his hallway as fast as he can
Pretty surprised at how messy that Cambridge study was. Why on earth would they use different bowls and introduce new variables? I'm not even a scientist and know this is a bad thing to do in research
Downright unscientific. Those guys started with a preconceived result and worked backward force fit the data to a hypothesis. Good science involves challenging your hypothesis to the max to find the result that fits the data.
@@TheWondermittens THIS.
That's why I went "LET'S FUCKING GOOOOOOOOO" when he said it's rigged. Because I concluded that it definitely is heh heh
As a scientist I can confirm that the Cambridge study is exactly how 90% of the modern institution of science operates. You can't put being right first when you need to publish to keep your job.
@@arck9395 ....wow. Yes i think you do have a point here
I looked away for a second when you said, "The Rectifier!". My stupidly dumb brain heard, "The Rectum Fire!". Two VERY different things. You have one of my absolute favorite channels on TH-cam. Thanks for teaching me so much!
I don't care about the chains, that "central vacuuming system" is insane, I've never even heard of one before. Definitely adding to my build list
It's way better than the one in my house. I've got pipes in the wall and a big central pump, but they only provide suction. The hose is external and I have to lug the entire thing all over the house. I used it for a while when I first moved in but now I've gone back to using a normal vacuum.
These used to be fairly common. They've been around for many years. Very common in industry, especially woodworking.
Central vacuum systems are nothing new. They're seen more in commercial buildings than residential homes. If you want a home with central vacuuming, you're better off having it installed during construction as it can be a pretty pricey upgrade to tear open the drywall and run pipes for it.
how does this thing work? does it just constantly suck?... like me in life...
@@ThisNameWasntTaken There are many different versions. The cheapest "central vacuum cleaner" (as they're called here in Scandinavia where these were almost standard in every house built in the 80's) you turned on with a switch (like a lamp). Others have a simple microswitch in the lid/hatch, or just some pins in the lid that lets the electronics know it's been opened. There are also wireless variants that via radio signals to start the vacuum, either automatic or manually.
Today they aren't common because they are much more expensive to install than buying a standard vacuum cleaner, and when they break many just buy a new much cheaper vacuum cleaner instead of repairing the central one.
Industrial variants are way beefier with 3-phase motors and frequency control so that several hoses can be active at the same time.
For home usage though it's not worth the installation cost, although modern ones with HEPA filters doesn't require an outlet hole to be drilled in an exterior wall to let the air out since they sufficiently clean the air to be let back into the house.
Fun fact: many kids toys got "disappeared" when they were playing next to these wall outlets and curiosity made them lifting the lid... Anything close to these outlets and was small enough vanished - and mum/dad had to go on a retrieval mission in the big bag of dust and nasties... ;)
"There is a small force of gravity acting on the short length of chain. Let's ignore that. Let's also ignore friction for now."
Spoken like a true physicist.
Like a true engineer *
@@danielclv97 I would think engineers are better at keeping it real.
I believe he also said that's because there's a F2 where F1
Now consider a chain falling in a perfect frictionless vaccum before hitting a spherical cow...
@@jakx2ob physics put everything on paper, they want to model the reality as best as possible. Engineers put only what they need and make more approximations, they want to model the reality as simple as possible, as long as the result is within an error margin.
PS: Mehdi is an electrical engineer, I am an automation engineer.
"let's ignore friction for now" said every physics student always.
😂
Air resistance who?
@@loganvetsch8979 lets ingore that too for the sake sake of our sanity
Poor friction and wind resistant, often get ignored
@@FromNothingComesNothing not a physics dude, but how come wind resistance doesn't fall under "friction" if it literally is friction
I don't know you personally, but I love ya Mehdi. You are one of my favorite humans. I hope you continue to find happiness in educating all of us, because you are damned good at it.
Thank you for teaching us, and having a great sense of humor while doing so lol
I watched Steve's video first. He completely convinced me. Then I watched Mehdi's video. He also completely convinced me.
So if I had to vote I'd be 50.1% for Mehdi and 49.9% for Steve. Sorry, Steve.
I take the win!
Damn that's tight!
getting down in this reply section in particular just further makes me feel like this video is really owned by two youtube channels... Furthermore to watch this discussion vid feels friendlier than on veritasium's more formal feel of him discussing with that other person that agreed on a total 10,000 buckos bet
I have one doubt he upload just now but he comment 6 hours ago
@@a.vignesh4562 time travel!!
1:05 that prank on your daughter is the best KiwiCo sponsor spot I've seen!
You see this effect on a much larger scale when ships drop their anchor. The chain starts to snake horizontally as the large anchor drops. As if the chain were solid at the point of the turns
But if the chain gets going too fast, it can lift from the windless. If THAT happens, RUN!!! :)
As a rigger, I've seen it.
Now I want to see a video of this happening! I must go search TH-cam for videos of ships dropping anchor now... Unless you have a suggested video to save me countless hours LOL
@@suzannep th-cam.com/video/hMytHt1D1go/w-d-xo.html
@@dragonfireproductions790 This is the video we needed lol
"Ignore the friction for now" sounds like engineering
@barutaji I think your right. I spoke in haste.
Really depens on what your doing computer engineer here (about 85% the same as a ee) its like saying remeber wires have resistance and to factor that in to your work. The real solution is to greatly oversize the wires.
Remeber engineers can sometimes be lazy by nature and usally unless your working on something specfic youll choose a design that will negate friction/ parts designed for that load and then you'll just frogot about it.
(Untill something is extremely hot or wareing to fast cause you missed something d'oh lol)
Edit: just to cover my ass no offence to any tribologists out there. Didn't even know what that was till the above comment. I do hate how speclized our trades have become. Its all very similar math in the end.
sounds like no lube available til tomorrow
That is what wd40 is for.
@barutaji "Engineers can't ignore friction"
I bet electrical engineers often can. :)
I decided to study to become an electrical engineer and I immediately grew a unibrow and got a thick accent.
Is this a blessing?
Yes
It seems to have also had the effect of generating whack TH-cam comments
@@MadScientist267 ik what even is this comment section, still a blessing tho
It's a sign!
"and since I'm electrical engineer, I'm over qualified" 😂😂
As a mechanical and electrical engineer with background in both fields, I agree.
Mechanical engineers can forget the forest for the trees. If electrical engineers forget, they get shocked into remembering.
@@FilmFlam-8008 chemical engineer here. You're not wrong.
“But i have more subscribers”
@@FilmFlam-8008 Most MechEs would agree.
@@FilmFlam-8008 I feel that MechEs are probably all forest and less about the specific trees. They get inundated with so much general, broad knowledge that much of the specialized stuff is pushed off to engineering specializations or to technical electives in grad school.
@ElectroBOOM you can also see this effect using a rope going over an edge aswell given enough velocity.
So in reality this is just essentially a basic trajectory problem (which is exactly how you explained it anyways)
where each point of the chain leaving the cup has a slightly faster initial velocity allowing that point to hit a higher trajectory.
A rope would have a sufficient enough bend radius to produce a reaction force from this effect so this argument makes no sense.
After watching this, I think Mehdi could help solving the Nuclear Fusion challenge 😎
Um no thanks I would rather have a nuclear meltdown than a fusion meltdown 😅
@@sammysam3136 fusion reactor cant meltdown, and a nuclear meltdown will leave long lasting live problems and nuclear waste, radioactivity and other crap..
He's overqualified
@@0Blueaura If anyone could make a fusion reactor run away with itself and melt down, it's Mehdi :p
HI MARS!!!! I love your videos!
To me it seems related to the mechanics of a whip, this change in direction looks like wave traveleling down the line (actually up in this context), like when you make waves in a rope
I agree. With the vacuum tube and every chain, there was a whip lash effect at the end.
it is that effect. just that a whip is made in such a way that those forces are multiplied at the tip for other reasons such as decrease in mass ant etc
This is literally whip physics. I don't see why they don't see that. Medhi is 100% correct. Mould will be known for how he got this one wrong.
My take about the forces: the chain has to do a sharp turn, but it resists it, it wants to stay more or less straight, so it springs a bit back, taking away some energy that was applied by the pull of gravity (or something else). This is why the regular chain doesn't work that well, it cannot spring much, only when there is sufficient tension. Starting from the bucket, there is a force pulling the chain up and at the same time giving it some angular momentum, at the peak it has turn horizontally and then down, in the opposite direction of the first pull. This is identical to giving a strong up and down pull on a rope, you get a wave in the same shape, like a pulse.
Wanted to say that. Looks like whip to me.
This answer literally makes way more sense. The 2D models were key
But the curve in the 2d model moves in the direction it's being pulled, however the Mould affect causes the chain to move in the opposite direction it's being pulled. Therefore the experiments he did, the Mould effect wasn't happening, because if it was, the curve in the chain would move to the right in the opposite direction of the force, but it doesn't
at 10:40 when he pulls the chain, the curve moves to the left consistently throught the time the force is acting on it, the same direction as the force. But when the experiment is done in the glass cup, the curve in the chain chain goes up, in the opposite direction to the force pulling downwards, so therefore the Mould affect doesn't occur in the 2D model at 10:40
@@jnsurf5512 Except it doesn't.
@@satsubatsu347 do u have eyes
it does
@@jnsurf5512 can you explain in more details which part of the curve moves left at 10:40?
Thank you guys for saving the internet. Everytime I think it is a festering sore of what is worst in humans, people like this remind me why the internet and connectivity amongst us all is a good thing.
"At home we have a central vacuum system with the hose inside the wall." Wait... what? I think I've just come across something that perplexes me more than the Mould effect.
Yeah same! I have never seen anything like that
A lot of upper class houses in the Midwest have something similar. I prefer a regular vacuum personally, but it's nice for quick clean ups. My friend had one growing up.
That was common for the first vacuum cleaners like 100 years ago but I never imagined it still would exist in a place other than a museum! I was perplex!
Our house has this haha but it has never worked as far as I know..
Some of the house in the NA have these and they all connect to a massive vacuum pump in the gurage or the basement. Usually it's just ports installed in the wall where you can attach a massive hose.
Forget the chain, that vaccum is amazing! I didn't know they made those
It's a technology from about 100 years ago.
How have I only just now discovered these exist?
@@puck4801 we're not all rich people who can afford in wall vacuums lol
I think I've only seen them in office buildings
I've seen them before but not with an integrated hose, just the connection in the wall where you plug a hose in.
Big vacuum machine is down in the basement.
Came here from Steve's channel prepared to stick with his explanation, but I must say you convinced me.
Excellent! Even if you are just an electronical engineer. You are verifying my belief that this was an example of momentum trying to keep a moving object moving in the same direction.
The 2d representation of moulds effect was great
th-cam.com/video/gE-3ApDiptc/w-d-xo.html
Its amazing how a minuscule change in perspective changes things🤯
@@bugz000 no
It's funny because it's true.
@@laundromast it is the mould effect in extreme conditions :) it does not need to be a chain, a chain simply makes it easier to achieve at lower speeds, it is the very same thing mehdi shows on the floor
idk what the other guy posted, so i figured i'd at least put an on-topic yt link up... did you even watch it?
"Loud noise means more banging" - Mehdi 2021.
Underrated
sarcastic or not, CHANGE THAT TO MEHDİ
@@tunahan5615 damn i should receive 5 gizillions volts straight to my chest for mispelling our savior's name. I correct it right away :cccc
I don't like the way that my brain is thinking about that.
Looks like old 2020 mehdi upgraded to 2021 new mehdi
Mehdi: "it's not gonna be a funny video"
The video: literally oozing with hilarity
Mehdi, the experimentation you have done here is well-designed, beautifully executed, and deeply informative. A great many scientists in academia and industry could learn valuable lessons on how to analyze difficult problems efficiently just by watching your video.
I took an interest in the chain fountain before your debate with Steve Mould came up, and had reluctantly intended to do a short video for his August 2021 contest to prove how the Royal Academy experiment was experimentally sloppy and could be disproven by attaching lead weights to fishing line. Then I saw your video and exclaimed to my wife, "This fellow has already experimented, beautifully! I don't have to buy all those stupid lead weights!"
Derek Muller, to me Mehdi should at least be considered for one of your August 2021 video contest prizes for this video, even if this video as a whole is too long to meet the rules. Mehdi's experimental work here reminded me of your own similarly excellent experimental approach to uncovering why wind moving across a fixed surface is _always_ a power source, regardless of how some device that accesses that power is moving relative to either of the surfaces.
Regarding one amusing way to understand why the chain fountain manages to defy gravity, here's the title of a paper I'm writing for my tarxiv.org website: "On Mould's Accidental Implementation of the Goddard Antigravity Engine." Yes, Virginia, centrifugal forces are real in practice, no matter how much the Royal Academy may fume about "silly" engineers using this mathematically very-well-defined pseudo force as a handy way to summarize the effects of linear momentum in systems under tension.
Along those lines, Mehdi, I'm pretty sure your constant is real and provides an insight into the dynamics of such systems, but that's only a suspicion at this point.
There also exists a far more powerful and generic model for what Steve Mould has uncovered, which for lack of any existing phrase I'm aware of I'll invent a new phrase: a dynamic standing wave (DSW), in which the medium is in motion and the observer is in the same frame of motion as the dynamic wave. Specifically, the Mould chain fountain is a dispersion-suppressed soliton as viewed from the same frame of motion as the soliton.
As Steve Mould has beautifully shown in some of his videos, DSWs also form much more complex shapes such as helices. This makes perfect sense from a dynamic standing wave perspective since it's easy to create helical waves in chains. All the Mould mechanism is doing is allowing the observer to "move with" those helical waves and see them as if they were standing still.
With the right chain materials, drivers (e.g., the high-speed equivalent of an escalator loop), and careful tweaking of momentum inputs from various directions, it should be possible to create arbitrarily complex stable and metastable DSW waveforms, though chromatic dispersion will impose some limits on finer details. At least some non-trivial applications of DSWs are likely since, if nothing else, systems that support a rich repertoire of metastable states tend to lead to new, unexpected applications in both mechanics and information processing.
Given that chain physics has been a "mature" discipline for centuries, I am truly surprised that the possibility of dynamic standing waves in moving chains was never noticed before Mould's experiment. On the other hand, I've certainly seen this same kind of "familiarity blindness" in play in other areas, especially ones where technology is moving quickly (e.g., packet-switching networks). Here, though, the oversight appears to be due to pure familiarity blindness without progress issues: Everyone assumed chain motions to be "solved" and so never bothered to look.
So, kudos to Steve Mould and Mehdi Sadaghdar! Your brilliant experimental work may well have created a whole new area of research.
that's quite the comment you've typed up there
Clinical
IT'S MEHDI WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP SPELLING THIS WRO-
Dude, I'm happy enough to read long comments, but please break it up into paragraphs, this is next to impossible to read without putting in a ton of effort to keep track of where the sentence continues. I keep reading the same line twice trying to figure out where the next one starts, and I think I'm just going to stop at the halfway mark because I shouldn't have to put this much effort into reading a comment.
It could be 15x the length and still be easier to read if it were broken up properly...
@@InitialDreadlywow, good reminder, thanks! I'll fix this. I'm usually good about breaking everything up into paragraphs, so I was shocked when I saw this old comment. Formatting glitch?
That 2D representation was absolutely amazing... work of a genius there!
This solution makes more sense to me. Curious to see what the “results” are…
I think the truth lies between these two. I guess that the lever effect is just adding to the force explained in this video, making these kinds of chains just great for this experiment.
I think that neither explanation is entirely correct, but steve's is closer to the truth. as you can see with the ball chain in a jar, the arc of the chain keeps growing (I believe that this is due to the added force that was discussed in Steve's video), but in this video you can see that it stays the same size when the chain is spaced out. Electroboom has effectively demonstrated why many chains are self siphoning, but only ball chains actually have a growing arc, and this hasn't really been discussed in this video. I would argue that the reason that the different kinds of chains keep banging against the side of the jar is because they aren't getting the added force that the ball chain gives from its leverage. Steve actually showed some round beads on a string in his video that were quite similar to a ball chain, but have a string connecting them, not metal rods. These beads are self siphoning and you'd think they'd have the growing ark if Electroboom's explaination was correct, because they don't seem to have much friction, but they're not. The only thing we've really found that has a growing ark is the ball chain and I think it's because they have very unique properties that have been explained much better than I could by Steve. Feel free to disagree, I'm probably wrong at least once in this comment.
@@hibas123 wrong. Watch this video again.
Mehdi- proud owner of 10,000 Canadian cents and discovered the Mehdi constant.
Mehdi Constant. We capitalise both the name and the word constant.
I think its pretty simple. Its just the arc of a whip thats traveling at the velocity of the falling chain. It looks like it stays at the top but its actually a whip arc traveling throughout the entire length of the chain, which is constantly being pulled faster and faster by gravity, which makes the arc larger and larger as the velocity increases. There you have it, now its called the Svenson effect.
Hi. I work on a barge. Every time we drop anchor we see the Mould effect in the anchor chain going over the wildcat.
Anchor chain was the first thing that came to mind watching this video :)
You should post a vid!
I've seen heavy rope do this looping thing when boats drop anchor. always thought it was cool.
Also on chain falls or manual overhead rool up doors. Once you get the chain moving fast it’s easy to observe the effect.
Physicists talkin about Mehdi: He's too dangerous to be left alive
Good luck, he is immune to electricity
When I saw Mould's video on his effect I was coincidentally swinging a towel to remove dust and realized it also seems to have a momentum in the direction opposite to where I swung it. Your explanation makes a lot more sense, and the rod/lever argument seems a lot like "assume spherical cow" level cheating.
I feel like the symbol for Mehdi’s Constant should resemble a unibrow.
Ω!
~
yep
Mehdi's constant: ⁀
@@aliciabaumgartner1406 perfect lmao
the overly complicated "lever" explanation always just felt wrong. It certainly looks like a momentum related phenomenon. I am siding with you on this one.
That's the way i always thought it worked, didn't think about it either, it just feels natural. That doesn't necessarily make it true though but still. This also works with rope so the ''leverage'' explanation seems completely wrong.
The lever explanation is momentum related, it says the extra momentum came from the lever kickback instead of from FREE ENERGY.
"MEHDI, WHY IS THE FLOOR ALL SCRATCHED UP!?"
AND ALL OF THE GLASSES ARE CHIPPED!
this is a very logical explanation. i honestly didnt think that this needed to be explained. i could figure that out without even reading a paper on this
I love those "science fights"! I can show those to my kids and tell them that's how things are supposed to be done.
"Well, it's a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer I'm overqualified." Turns out he was damn right
I’m with you on this one. The chain in the cup is being lifted up by the failing chain, therefore it has momentum. It then has to transition from upwards, to sideways and then to downward, in an arc.
I'm with you on this one. Funny that Mehdi mentions "infinite acceleration" because this is kind of the reason. If things could change their acceleration infinitely fast then the chain wouldn't need the loop to transition through all the different vectors of the momentum.
I've always thought everyone was over-thinking this. Shouldn't there be a relationship between the mass of each link (and therefor its momentum) and the height of the chain? And wouldn't testing different masses and loop heights provide the proof? Or would the higher mass of a heavier links cancel out its greater momentum (and therefore any height increase in the loop ) against gravity?
I know science isn't a 'voting' sort of thing, but I like your explanation much better. A lot of such effects are explained (such as your vacuum hose horizontally on the floor) The 'whipping' as the tail end spins around the loop also is more violent, the longer and faster it goes (suggesting higher tension forces). Also the explanation about fountains run from greater heights has higher tension forces. Steve found this when his chain broke from the crane-drop fountain. Obviously as more and more chain fell, the tensions increased, causing the 'fountain' loop to go higher, until a link failed from high tension.
Brilliant video as always, though I'm sad you didn't shock yourself. Couldn't you have stuck the chain into the mains or something?!
I have a thought about the horizontal experiment you do with the spaced out rows of chain (this is copy/paste from my reply to you in the comments on my video!): I don't believe you demonstrate the chain fountain here. The arc never gets "higher" than where it started 10:17 (I put "higher" in speech marks because the experiment is horizontal, but you know what I mean - "higher" means "to the right" in the case of your experiment). Yes, the loop gets longer when measured from the top of the pile (because the top of the pile moves to the left, but that's just how chains behave, once you're in steady state the chain will just flow through whatever shape it has. The fact that the peak of the loop actually moves "down" (to the left) in your experiment is probably due to friction and due to the fact that you don't start in steady state. The same is true for the experiment you do off the whiteboard 15:56. You lift it up before pulling it down. It's already up to speed by the time you let go and so almost steady state - the chain then just flows through the loop you gave it. It doesn't rise any higher than that. I would be convinced that I was wrong if you could show, with spaced out beads, the fountain rising after you let go.
Sticking chain in outlet would mess with space-time continuum!
You say "the chain will just flow through whatever shape it has" like it is much different than the Mould effect. But the Mould effect is just that, conservation of momentum and that's why the chain tends not to change shape. In my 2D test the fact that the loop is getting larger should be proof enough, and perhaps I could convince you the chain would rise "higher" if I could run faster! In my test friction is always against the motion of the chain in any direction. And I'm pretty sure my last white board test would start to rise on its own too if I had a much longer chain and higher drop AND a way to make sure those pesky strings don't tangle! Even in my 2D tests the chain lifted itself off the ground if you look closely. Eh... maybe we should revisit this with a bunch of new tests!!
Hi Steve
@@JjMn1000 ok
Hahaha science legends intheir fields..😆😆😆
ever wonder how a war between tesla and edition was.....
12:44
"Loud noise means much banging"
~Electroboom 2021
oww senpai that hurts :/
😂😂😂😂
can confirm
16:01 basically disproves Steve's theory in a single test for me. I find your explanation way more convincing, but whoever is right, its awesome to see these science battles. Learning a lot from it!
It doesnt rise in that test though, it only conserves the height it had with the starting throw.
Mould effect is where it keeps rising as long as the chain is dropping, the effect that this video argues for only conserves the existing path, which we can also see in all the sideways drags. It never goes over its original point, it only conserves the original path (and even slowly loses height)
@@jahrazzjahrazz8858 I think it also doesn't rise once it establishes maximum height in steve's video. You might have worded it wrong though
@@jahrazzjahrazz8858
The ultimate rise is based on the pull from gravity, like a fluid height problem. He would need a longer chain to establish where equilibrium actually occurs. The point of that experiment was to validate the lever assumption.
@@FilmFlam-8008 idk i think a better test would be to have a motor or something with a much more constant speed pull it to elimnate one more possible factor that might be causing a similiar but diffrent effect.
This entire chain of videos-pun entirely intentional-makes me think of how scientists of previous, pre-TH-cam times would hash out such disputes, often to the benefit of science. Now we ALL get to be a part of it! I love this!
The vacuum hose convinced me, it looks exactly like momentum
It looks like a standing whip wave. All momentum in more ideal conditions (less friction).
When I first saw this effect I imagined it was a stationary wave. Similar to when you flick a wave down a rope, except instead of the wave travelling down the rope, the wave is stationary and the chain travelled around the wave.
It's similar in nature, yes. Same thing with whips. The inertia of the medium is intrinsically related to the existence of the waves.
The point at 3:14 helped me understand it so much better! Funny that the guy arguing against the counter-force helps me understand it better than the one arguing for it!
after seeing the moulds video first, it took seconds to see what was going on and after watching this video my exact thoughts were explained how i saw them to be. i vote you have won your lunch money.
I know this makes me the "idiot impressed by shiny things",but I love that central vacuum.
Central vacuum cleaners were in fact, how the thing started after it was invented - it was considered unhealthy back then - and it still is - to have all this dust around that passes the filter and makes vacuuming a house the best source of dust keeping you busy.
You wouldn't if you were wiring that house.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 I don't mind installing central vac. I leave it for when I'm done pulling wire.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 I mean shouldn't it just be a compressor and filter in the garage or somewhere? 3 or 4 wires for the motor, disconnect, all that. Couple wires per "station" to control solenoids, also in the garage? Not too bad. All the "magic" happens inside the vacuum itself's wiring?
Then again I've never seen one of these in my life so idk.
@@nyogthatheone4743 well he's talking about having to work around all the pipe,and retractable hosing. Let's say you have to wire a house with plumbing,HVAC,and a central vacuum already installed,it can be very hard to work around everything.
the most impressive thing here was discovering a "central vacuum" system existed lol
Yeah I'd like to see a whole video just about that!
My friend has one in his house. The suction motor and fan exhaust are downstairs, along with a huge dust container and filter system. The only thing you hear is the sound of air rushing in to the tool.
There's also a special plugin for electric power to the beater bar in the tool. When you're done, unplug the electronics and you're done.
What? It is supercommon here in Sweden
@@pungskum Never heard of it at all here, USA
@@sapincher I've seen it a lot up North in Canada.
it took me two years but if you look at his whiteboard really closely, you can see some traces of drawn and earsed arrows. There are also some tiny gaps between the arrows showing his retries for a good clip.
I respectfully demand a download link for that sweet ringtone Mr. ElectroBoom has.
This makes so much more sense especially with the ground experiment
1:07 She's grown so much. It feels like it was yesterday when electrocute was a toddler. Time flies, man. Where did my last 10 years go.
You are going towards self actualisation.
Awesome demonstration of ideas and how to prove a theory. I will be using this video in my science teaching.
"it's a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer, I'm overqualified"
SOLID BURN!! 😂
As an electrical engineer, I totally agree!!!
As a mechanical engineer I don't see any reasonable application of this effect. So sure, keep it.
As a technician, I have to think a bit harder about it than engineers, but I'll find a way to make the effect useful in the real world!
"Its a mechanical problem, so as an electrical engineer I an overqualified..." lol
I work with some electrical engineers that have this mentality!
@@charlesh6519 true
Damn , that hurts
@@hellzaid Ist not all of you engineereds that are that way, just some!
This kind of discussion so important to show others how sience works. Keep on going
Nahhh, only people who already know how to debate, and learn come to places like this. Maybe I'm too pessimistic though.
I absolutely love being witness to scientific discussion like this in an open forum, just like the veritasium video, that's how science should be, open knowledge.
"two gentlemen having a civilized scientific disagreement... to the death!"
That line is brilliant! I got tears in my eyes now.
As much as I care about the physics, I'm so much more delighted by the reasonable, rational and friendly way that you two have conducted the debate.
13:11 How to efficiently scratch floor panels Tutorial by Mehdi
I just realized this is literally just a wave going thru the chain.
Yes, this hit me when he threw those lead beads off his roof.
I am inclined to agree... though the physics of wave propagation along a string or chain May itself be complex, I have no doubt that this is in fact exactly what is happening.
peace.
@@primateinterfacetechnologi6220 Maybe.
yes.
me too, it'S just a whip. Reminded me of the ol' video of the chinese guy whipping a big chain
Hey electroboom, it's the whip mechanic, while whipping a whip it'll curl until the end breaks the sound barrier causing the sound, it's a sin wave in natural form
I think you've got it, Medhi, You got my vote.
He is mehdiiiiiii
Not medhi🙄
@@alialiei249 HE BIT, HE GOD DAMN BIT
@@alialiei249 No one else I have _ever known,_ in my entire life, has shared that name. Forgive me, oh Mighty Intellect, for not knowing how to spell it, as I shall forgive you for using absolutely zero grammar.
@@Corbald nevermind bro, you right
8:03 is it just me or does that explain why steve broke his chain at the higher try in his video?
you might be right. I think so too
Actually it's funny because i think both explanation might be kinda true . The conservation of momentum and balancing of force might be the reason why an thing like that could occur and the leverage effect is what allow for change and friction to be ignored . I guess only if we CAN ignore friction we can have an answer
This was the same thought I had. The greater the drop the longer gravity has to affect it, the higher force pulling through the chain, but also the greater velocity, throwing the chain up and thus higher it goes before curling back down.
“It’s a mechanical problem so as an electrical engineer I’m overqualified”
Hahaha
It is the classic pecking order in engineering: electrical, mechanical, civil, business.
@@MartinMaat software engineer? hahaha
@@thegeeksides 🤔 Have you been Googling?
The 2-d effect is very convincing. The Cambridge people didn't even think of it! Impressive!
Love that Mehdi drew the ground with the actual electronic symbol of ground
Fun fact, Circuits symbols are often used in mechanics and fluids to show mechanical systems lol. So with the literal floor being the lowest point of potential energy in the system, he was actually correct in using the ground symbol.
this effect can also occur when using something other than a chain, such as a simple rope.
in fact if we think of the whip, its "snap" is a concentrate of this effect, that is the abrupt transition between the drag force and the opposite one.
14:32 that's actually a good point, if you're going to do a series of comparative tests, the external testing parameters should all be the same
They tell you to do this in 6th grade...
Already posted this on Steve's video but thought I should post it here as well:
I would think that you can approximate the fountain with a pulley. Meaning tension on one end is equal to tension on the other end. When the "pulley" gets going the force you have on the descent is equal to the mass of the chain on the descent times g, so, very small. As more beads get pulled form the upwards to the downwards the mass on that ends increases, which in turn increases the tension. As tension increases on the descent due to mass, tension on the ascent needs to be equal. Thus pulling the beads higher and higher before they curve. This would also lead me to theorise that if your chain hits the ground and you still have beads left, your Apex will stay exactly where it is until it finishes spooling out.
The "pulley" idea is also supported by your statement regarding the max bend radius the chain has creating the rigid body.
Mehdi - "I got a bunch of these for my daughter to try- "
Daughter - *Confused Screaming*
the comment fits so much to your profile pic lol
Where's the lamb sauceeee!?!
@i Play Sometimes the guy who spams and likes his own comments
@i Play Sometimes please dnt post sh*t here
"The edge of the container is a lie" - Mehdi 2021
mehdi
@@CTMKD mehdi
@@CTMKD Mehdi*
@@CTMKD There, corrected. Given that he's a parsi (and I'm a Bangali), I know this is how it should be, but his pronounciation got me confused.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 are you mehdi's long lost brother?
What Steve did with the other chain still had the effect, it’s just not as evident.
yeah there were periods of time where there wasn't any hitting the edges of the cup
@@psun256 Yeah, and from time to time some entanglement inside the container give a pull that bring back down the jumping part, and it have to restart raising the speed again till the next entanglement
I was an idiot and watched Steve's video first and was almost drainwashed into forgetting my electrical training. Thanks for reminding me of the mechanical engineering failure in his argument.
The most amazing thing I got out of this video is that you have a vacuum in your wall.
I'm amazed that the hose retracts itself so easily, and even that the hose is in the wall.
Agreed!
@@aftokratoryelectric engineers and electricians make a lot of money
This is more fascinating than I thought. Your "2D" experiments were amazing !
oh my god, your daughter's cut scream was perfect XD
Gotta love someone doing actual science and getting actual data.
1:10 Damn that was a scream of terror.