The moment they went with "we're gonna fill some metal shells with stuff" I pretty much expected it to fail. The main problem isn't all the surrounding parts - it is that even concrete "jiggles" too much, and will absorb a lot of the energy, even despite the center metal plate. The smaller cradles work, because ball bearings basically do not jiggle at all.
They could also have tried instead of solid plates, a tuned structure in compression and tension, like a ring with a screw in the middle, pushing outward. Tuned to a high frequency so it passes the energy on fast and doesn't swing. The balls with concrete likely had too much mass and delayed energy transfer.
Concrete is porous. It doesn't matter how much you vibrate it when you pour it it's still porous. If you were to remove the ball sections and eliminate the concrete just leaving the 3" thick discs I think you would get better results. Why you might ask? Well simply, porous substances tend to act as shock absorbers. When you smack two porous items together they have very little rebound. If you fire a solid rubber ball at a concrete surface like a wall, it tends to rebound off it pretty good. Take a dense closed cell foam rubber ball that weighs the same and try the same thing and the rebound is not as good. Take a dense open cell foam rubber ball and the rebound is pathetic. I have to wonder how it would have worked with just the disc's less the spheres altogether.
Well they went with that because that's what the myth video showed they used. Real wrecking balls are steel balls filled with concrete if they explained that right in the video.
And also why it looses power over the range til the last ball, as the balls are to weak to withstand that force as they deform. If they were all made of tungsten (or the hardest metal) all through, they would've delivered that force of impact better to the ends. I bet that the concrete they were filled with has turned back into sand again after all those bumps and made them weaker in the process, slowing down the force even more between the balls to the last one.
@@ComicusFreemanius Titanium comes to mind. But to have titanium balls of that size seems expensive. But I think it would work. It is kind of the perfect material for this kind of actions (if money was no factor, and it of course is in mythbuster)
Nice shot at 14:15 there! All three rigs in line... When I saw this episode on TV, there was a little cutaway where Adam said he wished we could have heard that whole discussion between him and Jamie about how to scale up the experiment, and I really wish we could have heard it, it must have been fascinating to hear the ideas they tossed around.
@@SoonGoneFrom what they showed, it seemed to be a calm discussion, and from what I have heard, their working relationship was always amiable and professional.
I noticed a few things with the wrecking balls. 1. The plates were actually deforming at the point of impact which they pointed out this indicates that the energy transfer is not the same as the smaller versions where you can look at the newtons cradle and they balls do not deform even after years. One of the mistakes that we make when we super size is we go the wrong way so their last attempt was the pull the ball back as far as it can go, which would have increased the deformation of the stell place. I suggest that they should have gone the other way, pulled it back less and tried to reduce the deformation on the steel plates making the energy transfer more efficient. Sometimes when you scale going bigger is not better but going smaller makes better use of the energy transfer. Pity the program is finished it would have been really interesting to see if this could have been different. Another feature I would have suggested is not fill the balls with concrete, just keep the plates, again reducing the inertia to the point that the plates do not deform and the energy transfer is is cleaner could have given a different result. when scaling another mistake is to scale the weight but this pushes the materials beyond their limits so you need to take that into account and scale the weight according to the material properties not just the size.
You are absolutely right that there are ways to make this work, but the points here wasn't to make it work, it was to test a particular video by using similar techniques. They wanted to prove you can't make this work with 5 wrecking walls. You can probably make it work in other ways, but that's besides the myth.
@@NohusBluxome The one thing that I remember about the series was that once busted they would usually go the next step to see if they could make it work ... they probably just ran out of time on this one.
@@DemsW Well they actually identified one of the causes of the failure and neglected to minimise that cause, if you read what I wrote you might have seen that I suggested reducing the energy input by trying from a lower height rather than increasing the energy input which increased the deformation of the plate increased the energy losses. Sometimes counter intuative works better, higher was the wrong way to go.
i would also hazard a guess that the thick steel wires used to hang these from, absorbed quite a bit of energy themselves. the thicker the wire, the more energy you need to get it moving, and the more resistance it will encounter whilst moving. so the length of those wires, i'd guess it effected the energy transfer more than we think.
today i learned how grant moving around inside a car imparts excess of 140 lbs of force to the car's hood. It's basically certain they never got the car to the actual tipping point after the first time.
Actually, if you look at the slowmo of the owl landing on the hood, you can see the car lean towards the owl, then back to settle back on the rear wheels, confirming that it wasn't at the tipping point. It was very close to it, but not at it.
The only issue is that the car was absolutely not even close to teetering. Grant and Torey were still able to move around and jerk around with no danger of the car going over. You’re telling me if a car was teetering on the actual edge and you added 20 POUNDS it wouldn’t go over?
I totally feel like they were having a hard time accomplishing what they wanted to do and just said eh, fuck it. I never got the impression it was teetering, it was just based off Grant and Tori's feeling that it was teetering. The real problem with the myth is that getting a car to teeter reliably is almost impossible, we are talking millimeter precision, and having 2 people inside the car adds too many variables.
@@uaenruotel if you got that car to within a cm of tipping, any bird would certainly send it over the edge. But you’d need precision tools and that’s likely impossible on their time budget, but SAY that lmao! I’m not convinced that 80 hens wouldn’t do the job lmao
@@Wiznarskiyes, if the car would have been balanced a bit differently, with a weight corresponding to 79 of those birds at the front (or the pivot point moved by a tiny bit), the car still wouldn't have tipped over, but it would have taken *only one (the 80th)* bird to do it. when they moved around a lot in the car, that already should correspond to several birds sitting down, and yet the car didn't tip over. this shows that they were not yet close enough to the exact point. additionally they ignored lots of variables like the geometry of the car and the ground, any possible deformation of the chassis, etc. in most of these older movies and with a close look, i can see some constructions welded underneath the cars, and only newer movies (with better cgi to remove it afterwards) don't show those helpers under the car. on the other hand, this also shows that with such a delicate balance needed for it to work, any car in real life should be either falling or be "pretty safe". most such movies also show the car to sway back and forth. i see that as a hint that those cars seem to be at an almost stable point where a single bird makes no big difference. to have it happen, the car would need to be in a pretty unstable balance that already over a short time would tip one way or the other also without a bird, eg by wind, tiny corns of gravel moving under the car, etc. only one in a hundred or in a thousand such events would create the right conditions (if at all), and thus having it happen in most of those movies is busted nonetheless, just as with most events in any movie only showing that one rare case where something interesting/incredible happens, while the other thousand movies with it not happening simply are not shown :-) ... theoretically possible, but highly (almost impossibly) improbable, even when trying to set it up intentionally.
Plus, just for sake of the literal sense of the myth - throw a friggin Ostrich on the hood, that's 250 pounds (120kg) of bird stat, that should about do it :D (I'd love to see that in a comedy movie, Naked Gun style..)
42:18 It's obvious the car is not on the tipping point. At first they rushed the car down with just leaning forwards and now they need tens of kilos of mass. Clearly they aren't at the tipping point. 47:40 The problem is probably in the steel plate. I'm imagining the plates are deforming and so they are consuming and redirecting the impact in the wrong way. In order for the cradle to work you need to transfer the impact in one big vibration. Full steel balls would probably work.
Cradle: Bigger Balls mean more room for error in connection. The balls don't hit exactly at their center, so the energy gets diffused to other directions than directly forward. So the loss is greater. Extremely precise machining would reduce the loss again. Also: Don't use strechty ropes! Also, What a sturdy car!
exactly, I also think that the weight is off. small ball has a curtain mass and weight... I think if you scaled up the weight according to the size of the balls, the result would also be better.
There are a couple of problems: 1) As the balls get bigger, the they become more deformed with each collision. This means that more energy is absorbed, turned into heat. 2) The density of concrete is less than the density of steel. This means that more energy is lost to drag. If they could find a material that does not deform under collisions with that much force, they would get a much better result. And yes, I would have used steel cables, not rope.
The first custom wrecking balls weren't seated so that they were all touching, there was visible gaps between some, I wonder if that contributed to the outcome
@@surferdude4487 I think you're on the right track here. The biggest problem was that they used concrete with metal discs instead of using solid metal spheres. What I surmise happened is that the force compressed the metal edge-to-edge which in turn caused it to expand in the middle. This expansion distorted the concrete which then absorbed much of the energy so that it was neither returned to the metal nor transferred to the next stage. Only a small residue of the energy made it across the disc to the opposite edge.
@@melkiorwiseman5234 That's right. There are two components to every collision; plastic and elastic. The plastic component, which results in deformation also results in loss of energy in the form of heat. Vehicles are deliberately designed with crumple zones. The materials in crumple zones deform to dissipate energy and reduce the amount of energy transferred to the people in the vehicle. This is great in a crash, but not what we're looking for in a Newton's cradle. Even with balls of the best hardened steel available, there is still a limit to how big the balls can be before they experience plastic deformation from the energy of the collision. This is part of the reason that even the 2 1/2" steel balls had more losses than the small balls in the original article.
A ball bearing is rigid and difficult to distort. The balls here flex are and absorb large amounts of energy. If they had used rubber balls they would distort absorbing lots of energy. You can hear this from the sound that is radiating when the balls collide. In essence it boils down to Newtons Experimental Law of Impact NELI. The coefficient of restitution.
It’s funny how believable people thought the cgi was back in the day😂 all these infamous original viral videos are comically fake now looking back with HD technology etc. Gotta love mb
This is what I was thinking. At 19:47, when Adam is explaining what they need to make it work, he forgets the most crucial thing: the material its made of. Does it have to be round? Yeah, ish. Does it have to be equal mass? To a degree, but there can certainly be room for error. Does it need to be 100% steel? Abso-fucking-lutely. The whole point of it is energy transfer through a same medium, i.e. steel.
@@hiddenxalpha7053 but then surroundd by concrete, a porus material, if the force is distributed laterally only fine, but its not, 100% steel is the solution.
Correct. Ok, they filled the balls with concrete. But concrete has a nasty habit of absorbing impacts. This means the balls are sort of flexible and give in to the impact instead of sending the impact to the next ball. This is why it failed. They probably did this to save money, but it was a very bad decision that made this fail.
@@fatpo0ol Okay, so you're stupid or didnt watch the video clearly. The metal circle is solid, all the way through. The top and bottom HALVES of the ball is filled with concrete. The steel goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH in a solid disc.
At 19:47, when Adam is explaining what they need to make it work, he forgets the most crucial thing: the material its made of. Does it have to be round? Yeah, ish. Does it have to be equal mass? To a degree, but there can certainly be room for error. Does it need to be 100% steel? Abso-fucking-lutely. The whole point of it is energy transfer through a same medium, i.e. steel. Filling the balls with concrete was a massive mistake and cost the myth. I'd even go as far as to say it would've worked better if the balls were hollow.
@@Rincypoopoo Rubber is pretty good at dampening force. Think about car bumpers or playgrounds. I should say more then just air, I think they would need to be vacuum sealed. Shame it was never put to the test, it would be really interesting to know.
The basic issue was they used mild steel which is not rigid enough at these sizes. They needed something much harder for its weight, at least hardened steel but ideally something like titanium alloy (but that would get pretty expensive). They could have perhaps just hardened the contact points to minimise the deformation at the point of highest pressure. They also did not ensure the balls were touching. An easy way to ensure this would be to put them very close, and then pull ball 1,2, and 4,5 towards ball 3 so the strings are at a slight angle. That would guarantee the best energy transfer from contact. Other people have also pointed this out but the concrete is very shock absorbing, and it would have been better to fill them with nothing at all, if they couldnt get solid steel. Lastly the hanging frame was definitely not ideal. The tabletop frame is basically immovable, but with the frame itself hanging there was probably a fair bit of wiggle, even after bracing it. Hanging it from a bridge would perhaps have been a better option, or at least a shorter crane. In theory there is no reason this can't work, but it needs the strength of the materials to scale with the force. For example if the pressure of the tabletop version was 100Pa, and the giant version was 10,000Pa, they would need a material 100 times harder to get the same result.
With the tipping I think that friction at the tipping point, the sharpness and deformation at the tipping point, and the position of the centre of gravity are all important, but were not mentioned. I noticed that the car would always start by sliding: if it did not slide then it was less likely to finish tipping. I am taking it that the centre of gravity is higher than the contact point. With this situation, if the fulcrum was perfectly sharp, and the car at that point was flat and hard, then teetering would not be possible, because once the centre of gravity went past the fulcrum, there would be nothing to make it go back, and the car would inevitably fall (if there was no intervention). In a real situation, it is more of an area of contact, rather than a sharp point, and when the centre of gravity goes a little way past the fulcrum, the fulcrum point itself moves forward, and can overtake the centre of gravity, so that the fulcrum is ahead, and the car tends to rock back. If this movement of the fulcrum is not clear to you, think of a plank balanced on a round pipe. Also, if there was no friction between the pipe plank, the plank would not teeter, but would slide off if disturbed from its point of balance.
That huge Newton's Cradle was one heck of an attempt, but see at 47:23 the way the balls sort of wobble about slightly. The smaller ones I don't think do that. When they wobble, the energy's going all over the place. It's worth repeating but have the anchor / tether point right on the top of the balls, have the cables tensioned, and the rig up top must be the same sort of arrangement as the smaller one too. Everything's gotta be the same as the original to work efficiently. As for the car see saw, that was awesome, right up to the point where they used loads of massacred chicken corpses to throw off the weight. Should have just used small weight plates or sand...
If you're a vegetarian or vegan, that's fine, good luck with it, but you have to accept that a lot of people aren't, and there will still be meat available. Kari was a vegetarian, and she didn't seem to have a problem with it....
I think they should have filled the balls with copper or some other kind of metal to get a better energy transfer. I think the concrete just absorbed to much of the energy.
@@christopherdean1326 "If you're a vegetarian or vegan, that's fine, good luck with it, but you have to ac" Vegan, and I don't need luck with it. " and there will still be meat available." Indeed it will, so long as "animal lovers" fund that vilest of vile industry when they buy animal products... " Kari was a vegetarian, and she didn't seem to have a problem with it...." Vegetarian aye, the diet full of double standards and hypocrisy. Ask a vegetarian what plant eggs, dairy and fish comes from, watch their faces drop! Oh, the LOLage 🤭😅😆
34:12 That might have been the reason it did not work that well. The collisions have to happen in pairs and for that the separation between 2 adjacent balls is crucial. If more than 2 balls are in contact with each other at a time, you allow the energy to be shared between them instead of the clean full energy transfer that happens between 2 identical balls. The spacing is usually not noticeable in the desk toy version, since the collisions are so fast it only takes a few microns to make it work.
38:00 I never get why (particularly in US terms it seems) impacts are quoted in terms of Pressure. You’d think Force was the relevant metric right? Pressure only applies if the contact patch area is part of the consideration, but why would that be so? So let’s get real and start using NEWTONS (N) as gauge of effort transferred. Or some bright spark tell me why ‘Pressure’ is more relevant!
Serious comment: I think the small steel balls, being of hardened (no compression) and uniform material, results in the kinetic energy of impact of one ball to another to have the energy of impact internally distributed radially and symmetrically inside the balls. Being of spherical shape is important. The compression energy is focused back within the ball in a symmetric way. And thus this internal energy is re-transferred (conserved more so) back into the kinetic energy. Hence I suggest it could be that the myth is falsely busted more as the larger balls at the dry dock are not of an internal uniform material. Possible test: How do the small balls respond if they are made non-spherical, eg vertically rectangular with an extended flat small rectangle or hemisphere to be the point of impact made of the same material. Is the efficiency in the small system diminished? Alternatively, if the small balls are constructed with hardened ring, then other material of different density in each hemisphere, paralleling the rebar and concrete, again is the efficiency lost in the smaller system. ??
it should not. The reason is thatstel is (one of the) most springy things we know, even more than rubber. The reason we don't see this a lot in our everyday lifes is because the steel ball needs a surface that is harder or as hard as itself to not transfer the energie into deformations. But concrete is a very brittle substance and not got at deformations. So the reason is that the energie is probably transfererd to little cracks and deformations inside the wrecking balls
Car: It feels like there could be circumstances where that is feasible. You had metal against metal, car vs container which created a lot of friction. Car > loose dirt, and/or 1-3 more MM forward might make the difference Wrecking balls: I feel the material of the balls would absorb a lot of the energy. Yeah the mid ring was an awesome idea and solution, but you still have the relatively dead and porose weight of the concrete, which I feel would absorb a lot of energy compared to the transfer/absorption rate of steel
According to Wikipedia wrecking balls are forged from solid steel, no concrete involved. Forged steel is pretty hard, like hammer heads and axes and connecting rods and ball joints. And ball bearings are forged, ground, and heat treated. That hardened steel plate didn't seem so hard, I wonder if the torch cutting softened it a bit.
destroyed melons at 48:13 ??? You can see them under the wrecking ball newton cradle - they seem to have some odd tests wich they did not use for broadcast...
such big plates or speheres are very difficult to harden, because you need to cool the material very fast and thats impossible for thick pieces, even if you use a superchilled liquid.
To make it harder you can increase the carbon content, add alloying elements of different sizes to iron into the crystal structure to make it harder for the atoms to slide past one another or elements that precipitate out of the crystal structure or change the atom packing structure and work harden it as well as quench it?
I can see where they're losing all that additional energy! It's in the mounting/ hanging of the ball bearings. They aren't being suspended directly above their centre of gravity, which results in additional vectors draining energy from what should be their forward motion. edit - that's for the first 3 tests. For the plastic filled balls, I would think (as a first estimate) that the interior isn't dried properly and that the liquid is dispersing the energy inside the ball (throughout the liquid), rather than redirecting it to the next ball.
I think the bigger balls didn't bounce as well because more energy went into deforming and heating up the balls than with the smaller balls. The bigger the balls the harder they need to be to not deform as much and thus transfer more energy to the next ball.
They should have made five balls out of Depleted Uranium. U238 is extremely dense, and without having calculated it, I reckon it would have yielded a very nice result. In a large system like this, you need to factor in quite a lot of Energy Loss through Heat development.
Would've loved to see a thermal camera view on that, or some other method to get an idea how much heat resulted from deformation. I wondered why they didn't mention the loss (conversion to heat) of energy due to plastic deformation.
When plastically strained some of the energy goes into something called dislocations which are places where a layer of atoms have slid past the next layer by one atom. A dislocation can be pinned by lots of things including other dislocations. They store strain energy at the atomic level so all the energy doesn't go into making heat.
@@robertparkinson2102 Sure, previously existing dislocations might also release some energy, still heat would be a good indicator of dissipation of energy. Essentially Newtons cradle each intermediate steel ball ideally transfers the impulse in a completely elatic collision. ... Wait, thest things were filled with concrete (just read that on Wikipedia)? No wonder that didn't work. I could've told them that before they even started.
It seems like material problem and are they really sphericall? And if they are flattening, then it can not work. It would be far more expensive but what about titanium instead?
I would expect pure steel would have different "bounce" compared to empty steel ball with filling. Power going to steel side, that "bounces" filling inside, or tries basically..
They could have done more imo: use a gantry or a more rigid structure to hang from, since this will decouple the oscillators and conserve some energy. Also definitely they are losing energy to plastic deformation of the balls (dents are evidence) so why not try some harder material as contact points, e.g. carbide?
IN hindsight: Were the string lengths in same relation to the size of the balls / weight of the balls and what role plays the initial string ANGLE? Those two points could have been checked. ^^
Aaaand also I assume that shockwaves travel completely differently through a full metal ball and the Concrete/metal construct. My guess would be that the plates alone, without the "dampening" effect of the concrete (you had to make them hit perfectly of course) might work a lot better.
Using units like inches, feet and pounds in a show that is about physical science is just as suitable and useful as if a historian instead of stating, "Louis XIV of France was born in 1638", dated this event by saying something like, "Louis XIV of France was born 7 orbital periods of Neptune and 5.1 average lifespans of a spotted hyena after Galla Placidia's flight to Constantinople." 😂😂😂
yo love your show making money having fun is mint, as for the newtons cradle surely the concrete is still absorbing the kenetic energy they need to be stainless steel spheres then the fractoidal effect can take place which is moving energy in a symbiotic way with gravitational waves.
21:50 ... I'm almost too afraid to ask, but .. of the two boxes behind Adam labeled "Spiders", only one has the addendum of "webs" ..... x_x" Really if the answer as to why includes anything but the words "exploding spiders", I don't think I want to hear it..
Problem with those giant steel / concrete balls is in the material inside. Iron itself behaves differently than iron coat filled with concrete. Namely elasticity and reflectivity are different. If balls were made whole from iron, they would bounc exactly as the small model.
What happend to the smaller (big ) varieties of newton cratels? Did you sell the balls as wrecking balls or as anchors For boats or something afterwards? Also did this get in to the Guinness world record register as the largest newton cratel, officially? I would guess the steel beams cut apart and reused .
I think why the car / bird didn't work is because the friction between the metal car and the metal plate under the car. The point of no return is being held by friction. If they go one more inch forward, there isn't enough friction to keep the car in place. For the weight of the bird to make a difference, the fulcrum point of the car needs to be forward more, but the friction below can't keep the car in place. There are more little things that ya could do to change the fulcrum point. I would say that the C-can was level. If the pivot point of the C-can was higher than the other side of the can. If they had put a heavy duty rubber between the car and the metal plate. Those were just 2 of what I could think of in the moment of typing this out. I am sure there could be more ways to get the car a half inch forward more. They might have been able to get the car half inch forward more. but I can't say for certain about the car will stay or that half inch will be enough for a bird. All said and done, above I am talking about in a controlled situation. The myth is talking about driving and stopped right at the fulcrum point... The bird will NOT make or break the difference.
For the car, it *did* tip over when they leaned forward inside the car, much closer to the balance point, but did not go over with all those chickens on the hood? I'm sorry, but I suspect that the car wasn't as perfectly balanced the second time.
Well the obvious next step would be to make actual 100% steel balls and use some extremely hard steel. But I feel making the plates much thicker *and spherical*, not cylindrical would help. My hunch is that as the balls lent one way, the discs could no longer line up so well. And to the extent they were cylindrical, that could have contributed to the energy being transferred not towards the center of the next ball. So making them thicker and more spherical could have helped.
i think the the infill of the balls is the problem. concrete dampening the energy because concrete is not stiff it is really flexible for a stone material. also you have material deformation because of the impact that energy is about the level of a cold rolling machine.
The elasticity of a mild-steel shell full of concrete was never going to be the same as a solid hard-steel ball. I was prepared to be surprised, but it turned out as expected. I don't think real wrecking balls would have worked well either - they're probably made of lead - and that's not very elastic! The teetering car was more stable than I expected, though. It struck me that when the car was at the teeter point, the CG of the car (centre of gravity) would be exactly above the pivot point, and as soon as the car moved a little bit, the CG would rotate about the pivot point, so it would be beyond the teeter point, and the car would fall. I can only think that its stability was due to crushed bodywork in contact with the pivot point making a flat section of bodywork, rather than a knife-edge pivot
Well, if they used much harder steel disks and no concrete or rebar at all. I believe they would have seen atleast 75% efficiency. But it was a cool effort and sure was fun to watch. The car cliff bird thing was kinda lame fill.
if some company were to make ball bearings, in that actual size, then you'd get something closer to the toy, of course there's the physics of size acting upon the larger weights too I imagine, then perhaps where they had the toy cradle vs the large size jobs could be that they are working with slightly less or more gravity... which could skew the results, and demonstrably the materials between the toy one and the full size rig are not the same.
The only reason why the newtons cradle on big size did not work properly, is because it wasn't one material in the balls, if they would have made solid steel balls, it would have worked, because it is one solid material. The dents in the balls from hitting eachother, took out much of the energy.
If the ball was dropped from smaller distance, much bigger portion of the energy would be transfered, because the strong hit leads to deformation which consumes a lot of the energy. Than, even with smaller swing, The balls would probably do what they should.
SPOILER ALERT FOR END RESULTS! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! While adding the solid steel middle disk to facilitate force transfer was a brilliant idea I still believe that the composite...ness(?) of the final balls may have something to do with the end result. I would hypothesize that there is some form of force dissipation going on due to there being four different types of materials involved (Bouy, Rebar, Disk, Concrete). I'd say that no matter how well you vibrate the concrete the result WILL be more porous, and thus provide much more force dissipation than solid steel. All three previous models all had solid steel balls after all. In conclusion: IF you had been able to get a hold of solid steel ball bearings of the appropriate size the force transfer would have been much more efficient. Which should be possible considering the size of machines like the Bagger 288. Even if they have cylindrical bearings they should be sufficiently large to, admittedly painstakingly, reshape into spheres.
If they had internally braced the hollow spheres with steel rods across their diameters at the contact points, I wonder if that would have more efficiently transferred the energy from one sphere to another? Edit: they essentially did the same thing, but better than my idea. I guess I should have watched the whole video before commenting.
Since when are wrecking balls filled with concrete? That seemed odd to me as considering that you want them as dense and hard hitting as possible. That would make as much sense as a sedge hammer filled with concrete. All the sources I could find say they were made of forged steel, which is what I expected. Concrete is sometimes used to fill the steel frames of stationary machinery because it does such a good job at absorbing vibrations. So it's about as bad a material for this as you can find with maybe the exception of loose sand/gravel.
The fact that the balls of the smallest Newton cradles KEEP bouncing forth and back the longest and the larger the balls get (mind you, way before they have reached any size even NEAR an actual wrecking ball) the faster the effect that a ball coming in from one side causes to one on the other side (and back) stops and the moves of all balls become just chaotic, also should be taken into consideration when mentioning efficiency. That being said, I still would like an actually good and valid explanation of the difference that occurs when scaling up; even though instinctively one feels that such an enormous mass just can't be put into motion the way something that's merely the size of a bit very big marble can, I could not think WHY - though it probably is related to gravity and a form of (increased) inertia.
Yea... Small one is full metal balls.. Then they start to fill the bigger ones with some other material and expecting to get any result at all.. Shocking when it doesn't work.
I mean, considering the technology these days and how people are much more acquainted with CGI, looking at the graphics of that viral video, I'm quite confident that people these days, with a brain, can probably see that the whole fiasco is completely made with CGI.
Watching the burning fishing reels episode, I couldn't hold back the laughter, looking at the VERY rudimentary compositing of stock elements. An 8 year old nowadays could made flames look more convincing to the eye ... and that smoke? Oy! Hell, I'd have done better comping my own stock elements ... and I'm REALLY old for a VFX artist (but I actually do it for certain short films, if they ask nicely!)!!
The moment they went with "we're gonna fill some metal shells with stuff" I pretty much expected it to fail. The main problem isn't all the surrounding parts - it is that even concrete "jiggles" too much, and will absorb a lot of the energy, even despite the center metal plate. The smaller cradles work, because ball bearings basically do not jiggle at all.
Should have used steel balls from a power-station ball-mill coal-pulveriser. Those are are two feet or more in diameter, solid steel.
They could also have tried instead of solid plates, a tuned structure in compression and tension, like a ring with a screw in the middle, pushing outward. Tuned to a high frequency so it passes the energy on fast and doesn't swing. The balls with concrete likely had too much mass and delayed energy transfer.
Concrete is porous. It doesn't matter how much you vibrate it when you pour it it's still porous. If you were to remove the ball sections and eliminate the concrete just leaving the 3" thick discs I think you would get better results. Why you might ask? Well simply, porous substances tend to act as shock absorbers. When you smack two porous items together they have very little rebound. If you fire a solid rubber ball at a concrete surface like a wall, it tends to rebound off it pretty good. Take a dense closed cell foam rubber ball that weighs the same and try the same thing and the rebound is not as good. Take a dense open cell foam rubber ball and the rebound is pathetic. I have to wonder how it would have worked with just the disc's less the spheres altogether.
Well they went with that because that's what the myth video showed they used. Real wrecking balls are steel balls filled with concrete if they explained that right in the video.
@@oh8wingmanAlso ball bearings are hardened and the shockwave through the material is easier then a mild steel plate.
The fact that the steel disks are flattening shows exactly where the energy is going.
And also why it looses power over the range til the last ball, as the balls are to weak to withstand that force as they deform.
If they were all made of tungsten (or the hardest metal) all through, they would've delivered that force of impact better to the ends.
I bet that the concrete they were filled with has turned back into sand again after all those bumps and made them weaker in the process, slowing down the force even more between the balls to the last one.
They said hardened steel but I don't think they'd be able to weld on to it if it was tool steel or whatever bearings are made of.
@@ComicusFreemanius Titanium comes to mind. But to have titanium balls of that size seems expensive. But I think it would work. It is kind of the perfect material for this kind of actions (if money was no factor, and it of course is in mythbuster)
Nice shot at 14:15 there! All three rigs in line...
When I saw this episode on TV, there was a little cutaway where Adam said he wished we could have heard that whole discussion between him and Jamie about how to scale up the experiment, and I really wish we could have heard it, it must have been fascinating to hear the ideas they tossed around.
But was it a discussion or an argument.
@@SoonGoneFrom what they showed, it seemed to be a calm discussion, and from what I have heard, their working relationship was always amiable and professional.
I noticed a few things with the wrecking balls.
1. The plates were actually deforming at the point of impact which they pointed out this indicates that the energy transfer is not the same as the smaller versions where you can look at the newtons cradle and they balls do not deform even after years.
One of the mistakes that we make when we super size is we go the wrong way so their last attempt was the pull the ball back as far as it can go, which would have increased the deformation of the stell place. I suggest that they should have gone the other way, pulled it back less and tried to reduce the deformation on the steel plates making the energy transfer more efficient.
Sometimes when you scale going bigger is not better but going smaller makes better use of the energy transfer.
Pity the program is finished it would have been really interesting to see if this could have been different.
Another feature I would have suggested is not fill the balls with concrete, just keep the plates, again reducing the inertia to the point that the plates do not deform and the energy transfer is is cleaner could have given a different result. when scaling another mistake is to scale the weight but this pushes the materials beyond their limits so you need to take that into account and scale the weight according to the material properties not just the size.
You are absolutely right that there are ways to make this work, but the points here wasn't to make it work, it was to test a particular video by using similar techniques. They wanted to prove you can't make this work with 5 wrecking walls. You can probably make it work in other ways, but that's besides the myth.
@@NohusBluxome The one thing that I remember about the series was that once busted they would usually go the next step to see if they could make it work ... they probably just ran out of time on this one.
@@dennisash7221 They did try, they doubled the strings, added plates, what more do you expect.
@@DemsW Well they actually identified one of the causes of the failure and neglected to minimise that cause, if you read what I wrote you might have seen that I suggested reducing the energy input by trying from a lower height rather than increasing the energy input which increased the deformation of the plate increased the energy losses.
Sometimes counter intuative works better, higher was the wrong way to go.
i would also hazard a guess that the thick steel wires used to hang these from, absorbed quite a bit of energy themselves. the thicker the wire, the more energy you need to get it moving, and the more resistance it will encounter whilst moving. so the length of those wires, i'd guess it effected the energy transfer more than we think.
"You need to stop playing with your balls and get back to work"😂😂😂
today i learned how grant moving around inside a car imparts excess of 140 lbs of force to the car's hood. It's basically certain they never got the car to the actual tipping point after the first time.
Actually, if you look at the slowmo of the owl landing on the hood, you can see the car lean towards the owl, then back to settle back on the rear wheels, confirming that it wasn't at the tipping point. It was very close to it, but not at it.
@@jasonhilts2661 probalby from the deformation of the car frame or underside or whatever
The only issue is that the car was absolutely not even close to teetering. Grant and Torey were still able to move around and jerk around with no danger of the car going over. You’re telling me if a car was teetering on the actual edge and you added 20 POUNDS it wouldn’t go over?
I totally feel like they were having a hard time accomplishing what they wanted to do and just said eh, fuck it. I never got the impression it was teetering, it was just based off Grant and Tori's feeling that it was teetering. The real problem with the myth is that getting a car to teeter reliably is almost impossible, we are talking millimeter precision, and having 2 people inside the car adds too many variables.
@@uaenruotel if you got that car to within a cm of tipping, any bird would certainly send it over the edge. But you’d need precision tools and that’s likely impossible on their time budget, but SAY that lmao! I’m not convinced that 80 hens wouldn’t do the job lmao
@@Wiznarskiyes, if the car would have been balanced a bit differently, with a weight corresponding to 79 of those birds at the front (or the pivot point moved by a tiny bit), the car still wouldn't have tipped over, but it would have taken *only one (the 80th)* bird to do it. when they moved around a lot in the car, that already should correspond to several birds sitting down, and yet the car didn't tip over. this shows that they were not yet close enough to the exact point.
additionally they ignored lots of variables like the geometry of the car and the ground, any possible deformation of the chassis, etc. in most of these older movies and with a close look, i can see some constructions welded underneath the cars, and only newer movies (with better cgi to remove it afterwards) don't show those helpers under the car.
on the other hand, this also shows that with such a delicate balance needed for it to work, any car in real life should be either falling or be "pretty safe". most such movies also show the car to sway back and forth. i see that as a hint that those cars seem to be at an almost stable point where a single bird makes no big difference. to have it happen, the car would need to be in a pretty unstable balance that already over a short time would tip one way or the other also without a bird, eg by wind, tiny corns of gravel moving under the car, etc. only one in a hundred or in a thousand such events would create the right conditions (if at all), and thus having it happen in most of those movies is busted nonetheless, just as with most events in any movie only showing that one rare case where something interesting/incredible happens, while the other thousand movies with it not happening simply are not shown :-) ... theoretically possible, but highly (almost impossibly) improbable, even when trying to set it up intentionally.
In the end, with almost 100 pounds extra, it was tethering. There and then was the moment to have the bird land.
Plus, just for sake of the literal sense of the myth - throw a friggin Ostrich on the hood, that's 250 pounds (120kg) of bird stat, that should about do it :D
(I'd love to see that in a comedy movie, Naked Gun style..)
42:18 It's obvious the car is not on the tipping point. At first they rushed the car down with just leaning forwards and now they need tens of kilos of mass. Clearly they aren't at the tipping point. 47:40 The problem is probably in the steel plate. I'm imagining the plates are deforming and so they are consuming and redirecting the impact in the wrong way. In order for the cradle to work you need to transfer the impact in one big vibration. Full steel balls would probably work.
Cradle: Bigger Balls mean more room for error in connection. The balls don't hit exactly at their center, so the energy gets diffused to other directions than directly forward. So the loss is greater. Extremely precise machining would reduce the loss again. Also: Don't use strechty ropes!
Also, What a sturdy car!
exactly, I also think that the weight is off. small ball has a curtain mass and weight... I think if you scaled up the weight according to the size of the balls, the result would also be better.
There are a couple of problems:
1) As the balls get bigger, the they become more deformed with each collision. This means that more energy is absorbed, turned into heat.
2) The density of concrete is less than the density of steel. This means that more energy is lost to drag.
If they could find a material that does not deform under collisions with that much force, they would get a much better result.
And yes, I would have used steel cables, not rope.
The first custom wrecking balls weren't seated so that they were all touching, there was visible gaps between some, I wonder if that contributed to the outcome
@@surferdude4487 I think you're on the right track here. The biggest problem was that they used concrete with metal discs instead of using solid metal spheres. What I surmise happened is that the force compressed the metal edge-to-edge which in turn caused it to expand in the middle. This expansion distorted the concrete which then absorbed much of the energy so that it was neither returned to the metal nor transferred to the next stage. Only a small residue of the energy made it across the disc to the opposite edge.
@@melkiorwiseman5234 That's right. There are two components to every collision; plastic and elastic. The plastic component, which results in deformation also results in loss of energy in the form of heat. Vehicles are deliberately designed with crumple zones. The materials in crumple zones deform to dissipate energy and reduce the amount of energy transferred to the people in the vehicle. This is great in a crash, but not what we're looking for in a Newton's cradle.
Even with balls of the best hardened steel available, there is still a limit to how big the balls can be before they experience plastic deformation from the energy of the collision. This is part of the reason that even the 2 1/2" steel balls had more losses than the small balls in the original article.
A ball bearing is rigid and difficult to distort.
The balls here flex are and absorb large amounts of energy.
If they had used rubber balls they would distort absorbing lots of energy.
You can hear this from the sound that is radiating when the balls collide. In essence it boils down to Newtons Experimental Law of Impact NELI. The coefficient of restitution.
So big balls are not as efficient as the smalls balls. Taking notes.
Indeed
"Yeah? You got bigger balls? well.. mine are more efficient!"
39:29 oh right! That was before drones! 😂😂
I love how at the beginning of the episode Jamie plays with toy crane, and you can see joy on his face when he destroys that brick wall.
Adam happy always makes me happy, but when Jamie giggles, it hit's different
Too much ha-ha, pretty soon uh-oh!
It’s funny how believable people thought the cgi was back in the day😂 all these infamous original viral videos are comically fake now looking back with HD technology etc. Gotta love mb
Nah we knew they were fake at the time to. We used our suspension of disbelief for the rule of cool.
mehh of course we knew it was fake. It was whether or not the idea could be done anyway.
the wrecking balls have hugely less density than the solid steel balls. was never gonna work
This is what I was thinking. At 19:47, when Adam is explaining what they need to make it work, he forgets the most crucial thing: the material its made of. Does it have to be round? Yeah, ish. Does it have to be equal mass? To a degree, but there can certainly be room for error. Does it need to be 100% steel? Abso-fucking-lutely. The whole point of it is energy transfer through a same medium, i.e. steel.
@@p24p14 Did you not see the bit where the centre of the ball.. the bit that connects.. WAS.. solid steel?
@@hiddenxalpha7053 but then surroundd by concrete, a porus material, if the force is distributed laterally only fine, but its not, 100% steel is the solution.
Correct. Ok, they filled the balls with concrete. But concrete has a nasty habit of absorbing impacts. This means the balls are sort of flexible and give in to the impact instead of sending the impact to the next ball. This is why it failed. They probably did this to save money, but it was a very bad decision that made this fail.
@@fatpo0ol Okay, so you're stupid or didnt watch the video clearly. The metal circle is solid, all the way through. The top and bottom HALVES of the ball is filled with concrete. The steel goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH in a solid disc.
At 19:47, when Adam is explaining what they need to make it work, he forgets the most crucial thing: the material its made of. Does it have to be round? Yeah, ish. Does it have to be equal mass? To a degree, but there can certainly be room for error. Does it need to be 100% steel? Abso-fucking-lutely. The whole point of it is energy transfer through a same medium, i.e. steel. Filling the balls with concrete was a massive mistake and cost the myth. I'd even go as far as to say it would've worked better if the balls were hollow.
better filled with rubber...
better filled with rubber...
@@Rincypoopoo Rubber is pretty good at dampening force. Think about car bumpers or playgrounds.
I should say more then just air, I think they would need to be vacuum sealed. Shame it was never put to the test, it would be really interesting to know.
you could just built a desktop size version of the steel disc ball design and see if it is the problem
This does work with bowling balls. We had a classroom-sized one at school in the physics room.
Thank you.....helped me stick with the small ones.
Did you consider putting big rubber bands on them? One way to get the energy of deformation back.
Keep these video coming Banijay 🤩
The basic issue was they used mild steel which is not rigid enough at these sizes. They needed something much harder for its weight, at least hardened steel but ideally something like titanium alloy (but that would get pretty expensive). They could have perhaps just hardened the contact points to minimise the deformation at the point of highest pressure.
They also did not ensure the balls were touching. An easy way to ensure this would be to put them very close, and then pull ball 1,2, and 4,5 towards ball 3 so the strings are at a slight angle. That would guarantee the best energy transfer from contact.
Other people have also pointed this out but the concrete is very shock absorbing, and it would have been better to fill them with nothing at all, if they couldnt get solid steel.
Lastly the hanging frame was definitely not ideal. The tabletop frame is basically immovable, but with the frame itself hanging there was probably a fair bit of wiggle, even after bracing it. Hanging it from a bridge would perhaps have been a better option, or at least a shorter crane.
In theory there is no reason this can't work, but it needs the strength of the materials to scale with the force. For example if the pressure of the tabletop version was 100Pa, and the giant version was 10,000Pa, they would need a material 100 times harder to get the same result.
20:44 the "ohoh" made me burst out so loud somehow haha
With the tipping I think that friction at the tipping point, the sharpness and deformation at the tipping point, and the position of the centre of gravity are all important, but were not mentioned.
I noticed that the car would always start by sliding: if it did not slide then it was less likely to finish tipping.
I am taking it that the centre of gravity is higher than the contact point. With this situation, if the fulcrum was perfectly sharp, and the car at that point was flat and hard, then teetering would not be possible, because once the centre of gravity went past the fulcrum, there would be nothing to make it go back, and the car would inevitably fall (if there was no intervention).
In a real situation, it is more of an area of contact, rather than a sharp point, and when the centre of gravity goes a little way past the fulcrum, the fulcrum point itself moves forward, and can overtake the centre of gravity, so that the fulcrum is ahead, and the car tends to rock back. If this movement of the fulcrum is not clear to you, think of a plank balanced on a round pipe. Also, if there was no friction between the pipe plank, the plank would not teeter, but would slide off if disturbed from its point of balance.
That was neat. I used to love this show, I must have watched most of them. Yes, I had a crush on Carey ! She's awesome. Cheers from New Zealand 🇳🇿
Kari was/is lovely, but my heart always belonged to Scottie Chapman, she was/is a goddess!
That huge Newton's Cradle was one heck of an attempt, but see at 47:23 the way the balls sort of wobble about slightly. The smaller ones I don't think do that. When they wobble, the energy's going all over the place. It's worth repeating but have the anchor / tether point right on the top of the balls, have the cables tensioned, and the rig up top must be the same sort of arrangement as the smaller one too. Everything's gotta be the same as the original to work efficiently. As for the car see saw, that was awesome, right up to the point where they used loads of massacred chicken corpses to throw off the weight. Should have just used small weight plates or sand...
If you're a vegetarian or vegan, that's fine, good luck with it, but you have to accept that a lot of people aren't, and there will still be meat available. Kari was a vegetarian, and she didn't seem to have a problem with it....
I think they should have filled the balls with copper or some other kind of metal to get a better energy transfer. I think the concrete just absorbed to much of the energy.
@@christopherdean1326 "If you're a vegetarian or vegan, that's fine, good luck with it, but you have to ac"
Vegan, and I don't need luck with it.
" and there will still be meat available."
Indeed it will, so long as "animal lovers" fund that vilest of vile industry when they buy animal products...
" Kari was a vegetarian, and she didn't seem to have a problem with it...."
Vegetarian aye, the diet full of double standards and hypocrisy. Ask a vegetarian what plant eggs, dairy and fish comes from, watch their faces drop! Oh, the LOLage 🤭😅😆
@@aidangattinger8975 Aye, agreed. Or the same material as the desktop Newton's Cradle balls are made from.
34:12 That might have been the reason it did not work that well. The collisions have to happen in pairs and for that the separation between 2 adjacent balls is crucial. If more than 2 balls are in contact with each other at a time, you allow the energy to be shared between them instead of the clean full energy transfer that happens between 2 identical balls. The spacing is usually not noticeable in the desk toy version, since the collisions are so fast it only takes a few microns to make it work.
Wow, it must have taken so long to train all those hens so well
38:00 I never get why (particularly in US terms it seems) impacts are quoted in terms of Pressure. You’d think Force was the relevant metric right? Pressure only applies if the contact patch area is part of the consideration, but why would that be so? So let’s get real and start using NEWTONS (N) as gauge of effort transferred. Or some bright spark tell me why ‘Pressure’ is more relevant!
Serious comment:
I think the small steel balls, being of hardened (no compression) and uniform material, results in the kinetic energy of impact of one ball to another to have the energy of impact internally distributed radially and symmetrically inside the balls. Being of spherical shape is important. The compression energy is focused back within the ball in a symmetric way. And thus this internal energy is re-transferred (conserved more so) back into the kinetic energy.
Hence I suggest it could be that the myth is falsely busted more as the larger balls at the dry dock are not of an internal uniform material.
Possible test: How do the small balls respond if they are made non-spherical, eg vertically rectangular with an extended flat small rectangle or hemisphere to be the point of impact made of the same material. Is the efficiency in the small system diminished?
Alternatively, if the small balls are constructed with hardened ring, then other material of different density in each hemisphere, paralleling the rebar and concrete, again is the efficiency lost in the smaller system.
??
Yeeeep that giggle is why we always called him Jamie Big Balls.
22:30 couldn't help but notice that gap between the balls and wondering if that was a contributing factor
it should not. The reason is thatstel is (one of the) most springy things we know, even more than rubber. The reason we don't see this a lot in our everyday lifes is because the steel ball needs a surface that is harder or as hard as itself to not transfer the energie into deformations. But concrete is a very brittle substance and not got at deformations. So the reason is that the energie is probably transfererd to little cracks and deformations inside the wrecking balls
Well done for making Newtons cradle lethal
Car: It feels like there could be circumstances where that is feasible. You had metal against metal, car vs container which created a lot of friction. Car > loose dirt, and/or 1-3 more MM forward might make the difference
Wrecking balls: I feel the material of the balls would absorb a lot of the energy. Yeah the mid ring was an awesome idea and solution, but you still have the relatively dead and porose weight of the concrete, which I feel would absorb a lot of energy compared to the transfer/absorption rate of steel
How do Americans get ''booee'' 23:26 out of 'buoy', I wonder if they say 'booeeant' instead of 'buoyant'?
That, and turning "mirror" into "meeer"....
According to Wikipedia wrecking balls are forged from solid steel, no concrete involved. Forged steel is pretty hard, like hammer heads and axes and connecting rods and ball joints. And ball bearings are forged, ground, and heat treated. That hardened steel plate didn't seem so hard, I wonder if the torch cutting softened it a bit.
The bird helicopter is cool. That'd freak out some people 😅 Cheers from New Zealand 🇳🇿 OMG the robot turkey....😂
48:13 there are some water melons down there :P I wonder what they did
46:35 sir you have to change Angle of Rope (steel Rope ) it will definitely work.
And have To Reduce its weight
I liked how they kept calling the wrecking ball clip a viral video, when in the UK it was just a KitKat TV ad.
destroyed melons at 48:13 ??? You can see them under the wrecking ball newton cradle - they seem to have some odd tests wich they did not use for broadcast...
such big plates or speheres are very difficult to harden, because you need to cool the material very fast and thats impossible for thick pieces, even if you use a superchilled liquid.
To make it harder you can increase the carbon content, add alloying elements of different sizes to iron into the crystal structure to make it harder for the atoms to slide past one another or elements that precipitate out of the crystal structure or change the atom packing structure and work harden it as well as quench it?
Thank you so much sake of science..... Really appreciate
32:26 Is that episode available?
th-cam.com/video/uz4rJuVFd-c/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
th-cam.com/video/Ml5HEnlk8tk/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
More plz !
I can see where they're losing all that additional energy! It's in the mounting/ hanging of the ball bearings. They aren't being suspended directly above their centre of gravity, which results in additional vectors draining energy from what should be their forward motion.
edit - that's for the first 3 tests.
For the plastic filled balls, I would think (as a first estimate) that the interior isn't dried properly and that the liquid is dispersing the energy inside the ball (throughout the liquid), rather than redirecting it to the next ball.
33:58 Jamie, are you saying it's your job to carefully cradle the balls? :3
I think the bigger balls didn't bounce as well because more energy went into deforming and heating up the balls than with the smaller balls. The bigger the balls the harder they need to be to not deform as much and thus transfer more energy to the next ball.
They should have made five balls out of Depleted Uranium. U238 is extremely dense, and without having calculated it, I reckon it would have yielded a very nice result. In a large system like this, you need to factor in quite a lot of Energy Loss through Heat development.
47:07 - the material inside must be uniform for phonons, sound - not some crappy concrete material :(
I believe the original wrecking ball clip was a KitKat commercial.
Mythbusters S9 EP14 - Newton's Crane Cradle
Would've loved to see a thermal camera view on that, or some other method to get an idea how much heat resulted from deformation. I wondered why they didn't mention the loss (conversion to heat) of energy due to plastic deformation.
When plastically strained some of the energy goes into something called dislocations which are places where a layer of atoms have slid past the next layer by one atom. A dislocation can be pinned by lots of things including other dislocations. They store strain energy at the atomic level so all the energy doesn't go into making heat.
@@robertparkinson2102 Sure, previously existing dislocations might also release some energy, still heat would be a good indicator of dissipation of energy.
Essentially Newtons cradle each intermediate steel ball ideally transfers the impulse in a completely elatic collision.
...
Wait, thest things were filled with concrete (just read that on Wikipedia)?
No wonder that didn't work.
I could've told them that before they even started.
It seems like material problem and are they really sphericall? And if they are flattening, then it can not work. It would be far more expensive but what about titanium instead?
I would expect pure steel would have different "bounce" compared to empty steel ball with filling.
Power going to steel side, that "bounces" filling inside, or tries basically..
25:35 - 25:53 Just close your eyes and listen to this scene...
They could have done more imo: use a gantry or a more rigid structure to hang from, since this will decouple the oscillators and conserve some energy. Also definitely they are losing energy to plastic deformation of the balls (dents are evidence) so why not try some harder material as contact points, e.g. carbide?
I Still can get over....that robotic turkey jerks on top of the hood lol...
IN hindsight: Were the string lengths in same relation to the size of the balls / weight of the balls and what role plays the initial string ANGLE? Those two points could have been checked. ^^
Aaaand also I assume that shockwaves travel completely differently through a full metal ball and the Concrete/metal construct. My guess would be that the plates alone, without the "dampening" effect of the concrete (you had to make them hit perfectly of course) might work a lot better.
45:54 THIS IS WHAT WE CAME HERE FOR!
Using units like inches, feet and pounds in a show that is about physical science is just as suitable and useful as if a historian instead of stating, "Louis XIV of France was born in 1638", dated this event by saying something like, "Louis XIV of France was born 7 orbital periods of Neptune and 5.1 average lifespans of a spotted hyena after Galla Placidia's flight to Constantinople."
😂😂😂
alex horne, Is that you?
41:45 What happened to "We don't want to hurt the birds" (27:55)??? Hurt no but kill yes--very disappointing
I would love to stand on the centre ball when you operate it 😢 That would be so much fun😂❤
the 1 percent loss on the second ball set could have been due to your top mount against the edge of pipe and the V angle
yo love your show making money having fun is mint, as for the newtons cradle surely the concrete is still absorbing the kenetic energy they need to be stainless steel spheres then the fractoidal effect can take place which is moving energy in a symbiotic way with gravitational waves.
The shot at 14:10 is really well done
The one at 26:52 is quite good as well! But for different reasons....
Why did we not see the reason for the watermelons with the Newton Cradle?
21:50 ... I'm almost too afraid to ask, but .. of the two boxes behind Adam labeled "Spiders", only one has the addendum of "webs" ..... x_x"
Really if the answer as to why includes anything but the words "exploding spiders", I don't think I want to hear it..
Energy loss at the mainbar . .
strings are tied over the top bars causing extra friction as the line rubs against the bar.
I've never realized when i was a kid How gorgeous cary was
We were too nerdy and too in love with science to be distracted by her lol
I Totally agree
@@YoungTheFishSpeak for yourself!
Nah, Kari was like.. my #2 childhood crush, after Natalie Portman. :P
Problem with those giant steel / concrete balls is in the material inside. Iron itself behaves differently than iron coat filled with concrete. Namely elasticity and reflectivity are different. If balls were made whole from iron, they would bounc exactly as the small model.
No-one talking about the smushed watermelons at the end? Something must've been cut out there.
What happend to the smaller (big )
varieties of newton cratels?
Did you sell the balls as wrecking balls or as anchors
For boats or something afterwards?
Also did this get in to the Guinness world record register as the largest newton cratel, officially? I would guess the steel beams cut apart and reused .
Is this or is this not televisions greatest show
I think why the car / bird didn't work is because the friction between the metal car and the metal plate under the car.
The point of no return is being held by friction. If they go one more inch forward, there isn't enough friction to keep the car in place.
For the weight of the bird to make a difference, the fulcrum point of the car needs to be forward more, but the friction below can't keep the car in place.
There are more little things that ya could do to change the fulcrum point.
I would say that the C-can was level. If the pivot point of the C-can was higher than the other side of the can.
If they had put a heavy duty rubber between the car and the metal plate.
Those were just 2 of what I could think of in the moment of typing this out. I am sure there could be more ways to get the car a half inch forward more.
They might have been able to get the car half inch forward more. but I can't say for certain about the car will stay or that half inch will be enough for a bird.
All said and done, above I am talking about in a controlled situation. The myth is talking about driving and stopped right at the fulcrum point... The bird will NOT make or break the difference.
For the car, it *did* tip over when they leaned forward inside the car, much closer to the balance point, but did not go over with all those chickens on the hood? I'm sorry, but I suspect that the car wasn't as perfectly balanced the second time.
Best episode ever
Well the obvious next step would be to make actual 100% steel balls and use some extremely hard steel. But I feel making the plates much thicker *and spherical*, not cylindrical would help.
My hunch is that as the balls lent one way, the discs could no longer line up so well. And to the extent they were cylindrical, that could have contributed to the energy being transferred not towards the center of the next ball. So making them thicker and more spherical could have helped.
watching the newton ball myth somehow gives me abdominal pain, like i need to take a dump..
I always said the reason the large scale fails is because the impact starts to deform because of the weight.
Steel inside will transfer the energy into the shock absorbant concrete. May as well have filled it with sand.
Should have tried to move the bodies as far front as possible before falling and then used the bird
i think the the infill of the balls is the problem. concrete dampening the energy because concrete is not stiff it is really flexible for a stone material. also you have material deformation because of the impact that energy is about the level of a cold rolling machine.
The elasticity of a mild-steel shell full of concrete was never going to be the same as a solid hard-steel ball. I was prepared to be surprised, but it turned out as expected. I don't think real wrecking balls would have worked well either - they're probably made of lead - and that's not very elastic!
The teetering car was more stable than I expected, though. It struck me that when the car was at the teeter point, the CG of the car (centre of gravity) would be exactly above the pivot point, and as soon as the car moved a little bit, the CG would rotate about the pivot point, so it would be beyond the teeter point, and the car would fall. I can only think that its stability was due to crushed bodywork in contact with the pivot point making a flat section of bodywork, rather than a knife-edge pivot
Well, if they used much harder steel disks and no concrete or rebar at all. I believe they would have seen atleast 75% efficiency. But it was a cool effort and sure was fun to watch. The car cliff bird thing was kinda lame fill.
if some company were to make ball bearings, in that actual size, then you'd get something closer to the toy, of course there's the physics of size acting upon the larger weights too I imagine, then perhaps where they had the toy cradle vs the large size jobs could be that they are working with slightly less or more gravity... which could skew the results, and demonstrably the materials between the toy one and the full size rig are not the same.
Imagine standing right there where the ball will hit. Basically exploding your head
The only reason why the newtons cradle on big size did not work properly, is because it wasn't one material in the balls, if they would have made solid steel balls, it would have worked, because it is one solid material.
The dents in the balls from hitting eachother, took out much of the energy.
Is Adam gonna call it "Newton Cradles" the whole way through?
If the ball was dropped from smaller distance, much bigger portion of the energy would be transfered, because the strong hit leads to deformation which consumes a lot of the energy. Than, even with smaller swing, The balls would probably do what they should.
The concrete has gypsum crystals which are way to soft to transfer energy . They should have done a mini version with just steel plates first.
SPOILER ALERT FOR END RESULTS!
SPOILER ALERT!
SPOILER ALERT!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
While adding the solid steel middle disk to facilitate force transfer was a brilliant idea I still believe that the composite...ness(?) of the final balls may have something to do with the end result. I would hypothesize that there is some form of force dissipation going on due to there being four different types of materials involved (Bouy, Rebar, Disk, Concrete). I'd say that no matter how well you vibrate the concrete the result WILL be more porous, and thus provide much more force dissipation than solid steel. All three previous models all had solid steel balls after all.
In conclusion: IF you had been able to get a hold of solid steel ball bearings of the appropriate size the force transfer would have been much more efficient. Which should be possible considering the size of machines like the Bagger 288. Even if they have cylindrical bearings they should be sufficiently large to, admittedly painstakingly, reshape into spheres.
If they had internally braced the hollow spheres with steel rods across their diameters at the contact points, I wonder if that would have more efficiently transferred the energy from one sphere to another?
Edit: they essentially did the same thing, but better than my idea. I guess I should have watched the whole video before commenting.
To be fully busted, the final balls would need to be made filled solid with steel.
40:50 how far we have come, now a drone could land there easily and by itself!
Since when are wrecking balls filled with concrete? That seemed odd to me as considering that you want them as dense and hard hitting as possible. That would make as much sense as a sedge hammer filled with concrete. All the sources I could find say they were made of forged steel, which is what I expected. Concrete is sometimes used to fill the steel frames of stationary machinery because it does such a good job at absorbing vibrations. So it's about as bad a material for this as you can find with maybe the exception of loose sand/gravel.
The fact that the balls of the smallest Newton cradles KEEP bouncing forth and back the longest and the larger the balls get (mind you, way before they have reached any size even NEAR an actual wrecking ball) the faster the effect that a ball coming in from one side causes to one on the other side (and back) stops and the moves of all balls become just chaotic, also should be taken into consideration when mentioning efficiency. That being said, I still would like an actually good and valid explanation of the difference that occurs when scaling up; even though instinctively one feels that such an enormous mass just can't be put into motion the way something that's merely the size of a bit very big marble can, I could not think WHY - though it probably is related to gravity and a form of (increased) inertia.
Didnt work because the swing points allow off centre hits. Spreading the suspension points apart ( like the toy ones ) keeps the swinging on one path.
Yea... Small one is full metal balls.. Then they start to fill the bigger ones with some other material and expecting to get any result at all.. Shocking when it doesn't work.
I mean, considering the technology these days and how people are much more acquainted with CGI, looking at the graphics of that viral video, I'm quite confident that people these days, with a brain, can probably see that the whole fiasco is completely made with CGI.
If I'm remembering correctly, it was a KitKat advert.
Yeah, I think everyone knew that already.
Watching the burning fishing reels episode, I couldn't hold back the laughter, looking at the VERY rudimentary compositing of stock elements. An 8 year old nowadays could made flames look more convincing to the eye ... and that smoke? Oy! Hell, I'd have done better comping my own stock elements ... and I'm REALLY old for a VFX artist (but I actually do it for certain short films, if they ask nicely!)!!
i miss this show
Is noise the largest loss ?