Derek, can you just turn Veritasium into a gambling channel where scientists with opposing views put money on the table and face off to try to convince one another of the true answer? I'd watch that.
Wow, I forgot that rational and intelligent people who can have a disagreement, openly listen to arguments against their point of view, and then admit they were wrong and change their minds still exist. It's such a rare thing nowadays.
Professor Kusenko gets my respect. Being able to accept being wrong and pay out the bet shows a lot about his personality. His students are lucky to have him as a mentor.
The problem was his initial response to the experiments. There were multiple examples, all with the same result. And he just refused to not only believe it, but to even bother to test it himself first. And I believe the only reason he was humble was because it was all public. He was so sure he was right, but got essentially destroyed.
Well my comment was deleted, but I still want to assert that the professor gave a real backhanded compliment in my opinion. Derrick doesn't really deserve to be talked down to and doubted like that and it's very gracious of him to take fault in botching the explanation but holy hell that uni prof needs to take notes from Bill Nye and just be nice.
@@kevinlasher2812 I think the professor was overconfident, put too much weight in weak arguments (like Derek getting into Blackbird many times??), and was also condescending as you suggested. Maybe he thought he would easily win $10000. The already existing treadmill-footage clearly showed the cart wasn't being "pushed forward"; there was no "bias" in that sense (the bias was in the professor's mind that people would be as silly as to do the treadmill experiment repeatedly and always "unconsciously" push it forward). But mainly, "the video falls short of providing evidence that the motion faster than the wind occurs with a non-negative acceleration and that it is not caused by the wind variability. " Derek's treadmill experiment clearly shows there is positive acceleration relative to the ground. Unless he was suggesting that somehow the wind behind the propeller acquires higer speeds, or to vary so much so as to get the negative acceleration he mentioned. Again, clearly not present in the treadmill experiments. It seems he is trying to look gracious "Oh well, I had to concede if I wasn't 100% correct". But he was just wrong. To me, the main issue was understanding how the "turbine" worked. In any case, he should have gotten himself fully familiarized with the problem (or maybe he actually was, and is playing dumb) before betting that amount of money...Apparently didn't even check the literature on the problem. The professor suggested the bet right? Kind of weird. Not sure what he wanted to get out of it. Maybe "school a youtuber"? Prevent the spread of what he thought was pseudoscience? In brief, arrogance got the better of him.
His admission was less than complete if you followed the discussion on Twitter. It was basically “I was right, but there was a stipulation to the requirements I didn’t take into account”
i love that the professor only was challenging this point because he thaught "you made a mistake here which you dont often do and i dont want you to accidently spread misinformation since you usually are a very trustworthy source"
Ugh, the way he said all of that was so dismissive of all of the research and experimentation Derek and SO MANY OTHERS did, it's more like "silly kid, you don't know the REAL science. See, I'm a professor, which means if I think it's wrong, then it must be."
@@TheFinalFrontiersman right? and the fact that some of this was literally google able. it just shows you sometimes people's bias of what "makes sense" can get in their way of actually figuring out whats right.
@@TheFinalFrontiersman he was willing to pay $10k if he was wrong, and he was, so he did. Give that guy the benefit of learning as well, he had a lesson to take from this as much as we did.
but that's not what happened in reality, it's always more than just disagreement, ....ridicule, group bully, and personal insults are just some of other thing that got involved
He disagreed, he still disagreed and then he realised that he was wrong and conceded his position. If only matters of politics and other public debate would be handled in such professional manner…
It's hard to know who is right and wrong in politics. Was an outcome directly caused by a policy or was it something else? In the world at large there are so many factors that it's almost impossible to show causality.
The main difference between politics and science is science deals with matters of truth, while politics deal with matters of morality. The ultimate goal of politics is to create a society that maximizes justice and comfort for the individuals in that society as well as determine who or what that society is. In a melting pot like the US with such diverse opinions and ideologies pepole will naturally butt heads. If you reached the end of this then thank you for reading and please share your thoughts I like discussing this stuff on the internet, it's fun :)
@I love you but You can talk about the past though, and it's still hard to show direct causality. Look how many people still argue that communism and socialism would be good for people even though every attempt at it has ended very badly. The only people who seem to be able to convincingly draw conclusions of casuality from policies are largely ignored- Thomas Sowell for example. And even then it isn't FACT, it's just conjecture and anicdote.
That Professor was so bad a$$. He really argued his points well. And was skeptic enough to question the topic. In the end we all learned something because of him. So cheers to you!
Yeah and me, just some dumb guy here watches the first video on this, and i'm like "yeah of course", then i watch the professors rebuttal, and i'm like "yeah of course", then the video finishes and derek puts the issue to rest, and im like "yeah of course" so pretty much i get it
And I must say his points had a good foundation. Stuff like gusts of wind, different wind speed at different elevation over the ground, etc. I don't even think he is wrong with those arguments. Which are basically about external influences on the experiment. That is the reason experiments have to be repeated to assure that the result is not just based on those external factors.
Being wrong is the best thing to happen, providing the opportunity to learn what one didn’t know before. Being respectful and humble about being wrong is championship caliber!
The confusion of the physics professor is very odd to me, it is an interesting effect but the dynamics are not particularly complex, it's just somewhat counter-intuitive. My guess is that this was something of a publicity stunt on his part, a chance to play devil's advocate in a public forum, not an honest disagreement on how the device functions.
I would like to shake that mans hand. To admit to being wrong is hard. Learning from it is harder. My sincerest respect to this man, a true follower of the scientific method.
You probably could if in the area. Scientists and professors are usually approachable especially to those with genuine interest. When they do get media exposure it tends to be overwhelming, but day to day they will often just talk due to their passion (outside of celebrities).
@@FelonyVideos What are you insinuating here? That most scientists are not honest? That's really a disingenuous and gratuitous comment to do, especially since I suppose you don't have much contact with the scientific process and research.
Those "wheels over ground speed VS propeller through air speed" explanation, the lever analogy, and the demo of the moving board with the big and small wheels contraption are all excellent. Thanks!!
This is one of the greatest science videos ever made, because it's showing actual SCIENCE. Disagreement is at the HEART of science, and this video shows how we go about resolving those disagreements. I love this so much.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +7
We would need this kind of science for researching Coronavirus, and not this political mayhem.
Yes, it also shows that scientists are never authorities on truth, nobody is - the argument from authority is still a fallacy. Everybody can be wrong. It's morally wrong to censor "misinformation" based on personal opinions of scientists. This will not only corrupt scientists because power corrupts, but it destroys the only viable way to get to truth: Discussion among honest actors. TH-cam's anti-misinformation guidelines are very misguided and dangerous.
@@thulyblu5486 yes and no, there are some things we know for certain. How Neil Tyson said "we know the earth rotates around the sun, no one is going to change that. Now that we know it we can make more refined questions, lije what kind of orbit is that?". There is neither an universal truth or "universal lie", yes most things are debatable but not everyone has the authority and should have the power to do so, flat earthers do only damage and keep on beating a dead mule, sorta speak. Not saying you are or that im angry at you or something, and sorry if im rant-y, have a good day!
I agree. It starts with disagreement about what we see or understand, goes on to hypothesis, construction of experiments to test, and then refinement of understanding to explain it. it's a process, not any one result.
@@oammaslastnamethei3063 wrong... the point you miss is that sure, tyson is certainly right about the earth... but the point is that if joe bloggs the bartender with no scientific experience came along and refuted the claim with evidence to prove it wrong, tyson would happily concede and the science books would be happily rewritten... I.e tysons perceived authority in science doesn't mean jack .. only his ability to back up his claims.. The idea you think that not everyone has the authority to debate a scientific principle goes against the exact thing that drives progress in science.... EVERYONE can and should debate all scientific principles if they can back their claims up... no matter their percieved authority
especially since some of his concerns/challenges are actually valid concerns that should be tested for, with a "fail condition" (i.e. how the hypothesis can be disproven) the wind gradient for example, is a really good challange, because there is a diffrence in wind speed as you go higher, and a tall land based wind powered vehicle could make use of that to travel faster than the ground wind, even if the operator doesn't realise it. to disprove the hypothesis that the wind gradient is causing the vehicle to appear to go faster than the wind, you just need to show that the vehicle is going faster than the wind at the highest point on the vehicle. (or test in an enviroment where the wind gradient is minimal, like in a hanger with a fan model and a treadmill, probably with a treadmill set with a variable speed control to simulate the vehicle moving across the ground. that way twind speed, and the vehicle speed.) the gust hypothesis (a high gust of wind pushes you faster than the "normal" speed, which may look like you are traveling faster than the wind. The treadmill set up would also be a great way to disprove this hypothosis.
@@Reverend_SalemThe treadmill test is flawed though. By holding the car on the treadmill, the force the person imparted was greater in the beginning as it not only kept the car at a constant speed but also used the resistance of the wheels to build up the speed of the fan to the point where the gust from the propeller exceeded the resistance of motor powering the propeller at the treadmill’s speed. As the fan got faster and faster, she had to use less force to keep the car still, and eventually had to use slightly more force in the opposite direction to keep it still . She was essentially charging the propeller like a battery. This would be like if there was a 30mph wind gust, but the resistance of the gears is increased such that cart can only reach 15mph and the rest of that energy is used to power the propeller. Then the wind gust drops to 15. You reduce the resistance of the gears so that all of the wind gust goes to pushing the cart forward, but the propellers still have inertia so they push forward with the energy built up under the 30mph wind gust. The cart will lurch forward faster than the 15mph wind gust, just as it did on the treadmill.
@user-vt4up5ij9d i ment a tredmill test where the fan pushes the cart forward, and the treadmill is calibrated to keep the cart relitivly centered. (i.e. the treadmill is reacting to the cart.) basically, like chasing the cart with a fan. the fan is actually the thing doing the pushing, the treadmill is mostly to make it so you dont have to run around a large area with a fan.
@@TheElijman Well, if you're ever in a position to bet Derrik then you can tell him that. Although if you were in such a position I would assume you would actually have $10,000 since you would be a physicist.
Wonderful point at the end! Last year I wrote software for NASA that did my job for them. I then retired happy. In my last two weeks, coworkers realized that they didn’t know enough about the physics behind my software. I was thrilled and commented, “I’m happy to be challenged!” I wanted them to USE my software confidently. I laid out the ENTIRE set of equations leading from start to finish. Everyone including me was satisfied. If there was a mistake (there wasn’t) I WANTED to know. Peer review is highly important.
@@bobbythomas6520 80k to do math & physics all day. Keep in mind I have a 25-year hole in my resumé raising 6 children. My daughter working on the ISS with no hole in her resumé but about the same 14 years experience makes a lot more. Being good at solving equations and good at math & physics pays off. 4 of our 6 children are engineers. The other two are therapists. They say engineers are crazy. They’re not wrong. We love our work.
@@bobbythomas6520 85k. I was happy because I had a 25 year hole in my resume raising 6 children. My daughter passed 100k this year. She’s got no hole in her resume. I was satisfied having helped raise 4 engineers and 2 therapists who say engineers are crazy. They’re not wrong. We LOVE our job learning the breaking point of what we build. 😂
"What i love about science is that disagreements are not problems, they are opportunities to learn something new." That is a very good message, a great mindset to have.
Love this comment, if everyone could have the same mindsett about everything we’ll be flying cars to mars at this time (srry, bad english I’m from Norway)
You don't know much about the scientific community they attack and harass anyone who has a differing view from the herd. Even when the person has loads of evidence to support their claim they shun them and try to discredit them without any evidence to back their own claims. They are afraid of change and stuck in a dogmatic view on many fronts.
i'd like to see verita talk with nye about basic human biology such as how a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you cant swap between them then watch as a disagreement suddenly turns into a problem
Now THIS is a very good example of a scholar who is really dedicated to learning, not oneself’s pride. I honestly think UCLA is blessed to have such an awesome professor!
The professor is going to be publicly known as a fool after this. He's going to be hearing jokes about this from students for the rest of his career. Even his wife will be pissed at him for losing $10k. I had a professor in engineering school that said it is impossible for an electric motor with a propeller on it's shaft to be able to lift it's own weight. I wonder if he ever sees these drones flying around and has reconsidered his position.
@@alexkram No. The professor was correct that the explanation was faulty in that there was a singularity issue. This prompted him to rethink a model which led to him believing that it wouldn't be theoractically possible. Turns out that if you use a nonlinear model for force and momentum, you get a perfectly convergent model for the power transfer.
@@carlosandleon well at least in my youtube recommendation. The title is about debating some theory and application in real life but turns out to be an ad hominem and that’s not a good way for other people to learn in my opinion
I disagree a bit here. when established research gets confronted with a new theory which fits better you will still see friction from established research groups. Because they are invested in their theory, mentally but also in capital aspect. And that investment makes it really hard for the new better fitting theory to really win ground.
I know this video is a couple of years old and i just watched it again. It's very well done and informative, but this time i caught the ad for Brilliant and the gear ratio question. I love it because that's an old brain teaser that we got as engineering students and even machinist's training. Very easy, the output speed is equal to the ratio of the input gear and the output gear, . regardless of the size of intermediate gears. There are no co-axial gear sets, only independent idlers, therefore one tooth is one tooth consistently through the train. The answer is 30/60, or 1:2. Output is 5 RPS.
I think it is important to also acknowledge that being a skeptic isn't only about not believing what you are told. It also requires one to offer a counter explanation for a phenomenon and conceding when the evidence does not support your model.
@@andrewjenkinson7052 Yes, think about this from the perspective of the treadmill where the "wind" is just still air, and the ground is moving instead. From this perspective, "removing the wind" is equivalent to placing a fan that blows against the front of the car. This means the car will stop because it is not being pushed and the propellor is ineffective due to wind direction.
"Disagreements are not problems: They are opportunities for everyone to learn something" 16:08 I try to apply this in business and am regularly disappointed how often people take sincere curiosity and attempts at open-minded disagreement as a personal or professional attack. Cheers to the scientists who keep it real.
I feel you. Every time you question anything in business context you are marked as a negative influance, and often get met with attacks on your person and motives as a response to honest inquiery.
and god forbid if you applied logical evidence based analysis and scrutiny of every evidence to the victimhood claims of women or non-whites. Lol they come with harpoons wanting to kill anyone who tries to fact check them
@@sweepsweep5572 Strange, I find most people who claim to be using "logic and evidence" against victims of discrimination presume to know more about someone's experience than the person living it. Every single time I've witnessed someone claiming women and people of color don't face discrimination, it's only because they themselves are ignoring the mountains of evidence that the discrimination is real, dangerous, and deadly.
@@Nostalgia_Addict which is why I wrote "most people" and not "all people", despite it always being the case for my experiences engaging in those conversations.
I really appreciate the graciousness of both parties. As stated at the end, 'Disagreements don't have to be a problem (source of friction between sides) but an opportunity for everyone to learn.' If only the politicians could apply that principle, how much better the planet would be.
American politicians because they are mostly trained arguers (lawyers). Japan politicians for instance are mostly trained engineers and look how well they solve problems in Japan.
@Naughty Spicy Editz Not everything can be explained in laymen's terms. We do not understand science to the extent we think we know. I believe we only scratched the surface when it comes to science. There, that is another statement with no proof. But anyway, I will go with it.
Yes that is why this bet is not very in the spirit of science. If you bet it means you are sure of what the awnser is wich is not really science friendly. BUT this is funny and I am pretty sure Veritasium is right, LET'S GOOOO 😂
@@maekoo2036 Hmmm, but the bet did result in more research and development, which then gave us more proof that the concept works. Without the bet this video wouldn't have happened, resulting in a potential loss of research.
@@maekoo2036 not really though. You can in fact bet on something you're absolutely unsure about. Like I don't know... betting on who will win on a wrestling match? 😅 That's why people bet and why people do it. It's a risk; If you're absolutely sure of who will win then you will always win and therefore makes the bet pointless. No one will bet with you. Once everyone know what to look for in order to be sure who will win then there will be *no* bets because most people is in the same side. 🤷🏻♂️
but did he actually do that....or just secretly pay the fine and slink away without going on record(in a video reply) to announce he was wrong - I'd like to see the final response from Nye and especially Tyson too
@@BenjaminT.Minkler No need to flog someone over it. Conceding is enough; humans are still human and it always feels bad to be wrong. Scientists are special in that they’re good at swallowing that shitty feeling because they know it holds them and the rest of humanity back.
Professor Kusenko is a man of honor and an example of what a man of science should be. Defending the principles he believes in, but be open minded and flexible to accept the new information and change his mind. This video is great for science communication.
Hard cheese - they're only human, and we humans ARE fallible; that's the whole thing about learning - YOU LEARN things you didn't know before. Anyone too arrogant to be open to change of mind, is a fool.
If everyone treated disagreements as respectfully as these guys did, the world would be such a better place. Edit: Its been a single hour... Turns out many of you agree. There is still hope!
Awesome understanding and explanation. The best part of this explanation is that it is mathematically and physically robust because of those equations of power. This is why Veritasium is my favorite TH-cam channel, a consistency of good quality content that can be seen in every video. And with this, this video has become my favorite video on my favorite TH-cam channel. Well done!⛵⛵
Dude, you phoned up Neil Degrass Tyson, Bill Nye, and Sean Carroll to witness a $10,000 bet against a UCLA professor. What a freakin' life you live lol. Thanks for the knowledge, my friend!
Well everyone has a cirof friends... the most of us can call Derek the Weirdo, Deina the soccer mom from the Hood and the little Sku who actually ask for money to participate!
The board and wheel demonstration was a stroke of genius. The added complexity of aerodynamics was keeping me from developing an intuitive grasp on the car, and my aha moment happened as soon as I saw that demonstration. Well done. You really are the best at this.
That experiment broke my brain. I get why it works, but think if I did that at a 6th grade science fair I'd have been burned at the stake for being a witch.
Translation for an industrial engineer. An electric motor with a gearbox can increase the speed of the output with the same energy input. Energy requirement stays (relatively, minus friction) the same despite increased speed, and given there is enough torque to move said object on output shaft the output will move faster.
14:25 Now THAT is a perfect demonstration. You've replaced the "wind" with a rigid object and the relative speeds of the various components can be observed quite directly. For me it really helps put everything into perspective. Bravo.
I'm still working my head around the forces involved there. So you apply a forward motion to the object, and that makes the wheel spin backwards propel it forwards at a higher speed than the force being applied. Saying it out loud does make it work a little better in my mind, it's just the top wheel rotating backwards that feels strange, since how is it applying the forward motion when the wheel is moving backwards. Friction working oddly?
@@Quiczor the top wheel is "rolling along" the board -- as in, it is using the force from the small wheels to traverse the board, as if the board were the ground on which it is moving. While the board instigates motion in the system, what scales the speed is the gear ratio between the large and smaller wheels. This gear ratio is what enables the large wheel to sprint along the board, rather than *only* reacting to the force the board is applying to it.
@@WarrenEnstrom understanding that gears are levers which give a mechanical advantage proportional to the gear ratio is the key to understanding what is going on here.
@Naughty Spicy Editz placing a wager on the outcome of a debate is a strange exercise. ANY debate will be inconclusive to some people. People will argue anything. A lot of people seem to get hung up on perpetual energy - this cart is not perpetual energy, it's just a machine that exploits the difference in speed between the air and ground. That difference exists no matter what speed the cart travels, so there's always energy to exploit. That's it.
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” Arthur C Clark
@@maskettaman1488 the professor took his extensive knowledge on the matter and looked for issues in his video, this made him believe that this was misguided when it really was using a more abstract way of thinking that he had not thought of to that extent.
I have a big... BIG... BIIIIGGGGG... muscles!!! HAHAHA!!! What did you think I was going for? That's so DIRTY of you! GAGAGAGA!!! I am the funniest TH-camr ever! Maybe that's the reason why I have TWO (!!!) HOT (!) GIRLFRIENDS. Thanks for being alive, dear jo
I'm glad the professor opened up the bet. It pushed everyone just a little bit further into understanding this concept. Him defending his point but then conceding in a civil manner shows a depth of character that I hope we will see more of in society. You guys both went about this the right way and my opinion of both of you is all the greater because of it.
@@arkie87 Look at is as purely mechanical advantage. So much force applied to an area, and then that force is converted elsewhere. The confusing bits are when people try to confuse the issues with things like passive propulsion like with sails or hot air balloons. If it helps, think more along the lines of thermodynamics. Like with solar powered refrigeration.
@@arkie87 Imagine we have a wind turbine spinning at 40rpm on a planet where the wind speed is fixed, can it go faster than that? What if we added another wind turbine, that is attached to the main one with a gearing system and is accelerating it, now the main turbine is going faster than it used to. I hope this helps
"You have a much lower error rate than most people on TH-cam..." That's a nice compliment honestly, Derek. Your channel and the Physics Explained are the only science channels that I would seriously consider binging videos for long hours. Great content from both places.
lol I thought it made him sound like a patronizing smug you-know-what. Can't bring himself to say "you're really intelligent", just "you're less wrong than most of what I watch", which implies he can discern all of it and just knows all the things.
Good point. I don't know if I've ever bet someone money about something I was 100% confident I was right. I'm sure they're well compensated in their professions, but $10K is still very different than betting $10. I don't think too many people, regardless of financial standing, would agree to such a large bet if they believed there was a fair chance they'd lose. Maybe the professor understood that (including as Derek said...a public bet to boot) and was fine with it, but I'd bet (let's stick with $10K ;) ) he was confident he'd win. So right...says a lot about one's character by paying up a solid chunk o' cash like that. Good character these days, is especially valuable. I believe we're more influenced than we might expect by others higher or lower nature even if only indirect or casual contact. Faith in humanity is underrated, but entirely within our power to improve.
unless it was done for money from youtube this guy is a full time youtuber ,,,there are lots of videos on here going back 12 years if this professor did any research at all he would have been stupid the take the bet .....me ....I think it was all done to make money and there was no money sent to him or he would have shown the transfer,
@@HeikkiJuvonen I don't think it was new evidence as there are videos and news reports on here 12 years old and you don't have to look far to find then ,,,,,just type 'faster than the wind ' and they are all there ...surely he has the brains to do that.
If all scientists placed a bet. Science would be a LOT better. Scientists would be far more careful of what they claim to be certain. No politics would come into it. Think about that. (But we must make sure no crowd funders pay their bet for them!)
I really couldn't grasp your argument at all until you did the board with the wheels. Then it clicked. Thanks for explaining it in so many different ways.
I think he still does a bad job at explaining it. This is how I explain it: The body of the vehicle is making the vehicle move at a speed which is not much lower than the wind speed. The wheel and propeller are geared so when the wheel rotates at the speed of the wind, the propeller is pushing the vehicle forward. And, thanks to the same gearing, when the propeller is not pushing the vehicle forward, the wheel is moving slower than the wind, which makes the wind push the vehicle faster to get closer to the speed of the wind, which makes the vehicle move taster than the wind due to the propeller moving fast enough to increase the speed of the vehicle.
Though it's not really that honorful, it's just how scientists do things. If he wouldn't concede it in the light of overwhelming evidence, he'd actually lose respect from his colleagues.
@@Todestuete There are thousands of scientists rather lose a bit of respect from their colleagues than give up any amount of money. While like many others cases it can continue, with the Professor making new claims, continuing it. Though he didn't, that what makes him honorable, he a rare individual who goes with any claims they make.
Derek I implore you to make a video attempting to find flaws in the validations below; this would be the singly most important video you could possibly make and would be noted in the history books. Visit Brilliant Light Power's site for the validation reports. I'm sure that Dr. Mills would be willing to accommodate you.
Professor Kusenko is such a good embodiment of what the world should be like. Agreeing with the person he has a disagreement with even though he knew he would lose a lot of money. This is one of the few things that convinced me to pursue a career in science.
Mad respect to the professor for changing his mind on this one. It takes a lot of courage and honor to do this in such a public matter AND we're all smarter for it - this is EXACTLY how science should work (minus the money part, but I know it'll be spent well and it did add to the drama very nicely!).
Derek I implore you to make a video attempting to find flaws in the validations below; this would be the singly most important video you could possibly make and would be noted in the history books. Please visit Brilliant Light Power's site for the validation reports. I'm sure Dr. Mills would be more than happy to accommodate you.
Why "minus the money part"?! If everyone would put his money where his mouth is, when stating something, I think we would have a lot less false statemenets. If you really believe in what you say, put money on it! If you are not willing to put money on it, then you are not sure that what you are saying is correct... I think :P
@@byoshizaki1025 Dr. Mills thinks that Newtonian physics is the only way to describe the universe. On that basis alone, his attempt to debunk Quantum Mechanics is bound to fail. Hydrinos aren't a thing.
The reason it can go faster is the same reason tacking produces greater velocity than the wind speed. The prop is acting as a tacking type element which creates a localized vector.
Kusenko, you legend. Anyone who speaks his mind in a situation like this, gets corrected, and controls his ego like advanced human, putting fun and progress first is the MVP.
Back when the video came out he made a big twitter thread stating he still didnt believe Veritasium to be right, but that he only conceded on a technicality
@@michaelbread5906 and be proven wrong in front of all his peers? No way. He did this because he though Veritasium was wrong, but gracefully conceded defeat
Props to the professor for being humble and dedicated to truth. This was an incredible series of videos. Also Xyla is awesome! Love her videos too! Congratz to everyone involved.
I would love to see an official response from professor Kusenko. Not to humiliate him, but to have him explain where the flaws in is original calculations was, and how he came to the undeniable conclusion that Derek was right.
If you want to know where the flaws were in his math, look in Drela's paper (linked in the description). In short, there's no divide by zero problem. The UCLA guy made the mistake of assuming that propeller efficiency is a fixed number, when in fact it depends strongly on airspeed. Describing the propeller efficiency properly, as a function and not a constant, as Drela did, removes the 0 denominator and gives the correct result.
Hats off to Prof. Kusenko for being a man of honour and requesting for all the results to be publicized regardless of the outcome. His arguments were quite convincing too, and I have immense respect for him for conceding the bet and admitting he was wrong about the problem in public.
I enjoy civil discussions I’m not a confrontational type of person unless necessary, but not a whole lot of people on YT can have civil discussions with out their egos being damaged. This is a breath of fresh air
@@moenibus Nobody is flat earther. We knew radius of the Earth since the Romans. It's a made up concept to divide and conquer America. If you don't fall for that, well ... rich vs poor, white vs black, man vs woman, gay vs straight ... something, somewhere, we will destroy America, one cr@p at a time.
The demonstration with the multi-wheel cart being pushed by the board was a brilliant experiment that suddenly made it so clear exactly what was happening.
That's the easy part, it's just gear differentials. The part that's hard to wrap your head around is where the extra energy comes from. If it was just gear ratios, you could connect the rear wheels of a car to the front wheel with a gear ratio between and use that to accelerate the car. That doesn't work. I can guarantee it. The real trick is extracting energy from the lower difference in wind speed and the car, compared to the car's speed to the ground. Which you can do using gear ratios.
I love the line, "...disagreements are not problems. They are opportunities for everyone to learn something." This should be a motto for many aspects in our lives.
It is a good line, but does not describe science today. With Covid19, we learned that disagreements in the scientific community should be shunned and banned from public discourse.
Don't try to convince a climate "scientist" that disagreement is an opportunity to learn....lol, the science is settled, just ask Mr Hockey Stick Mike Moore or Cook the Books John Cook. Academic fraudsters should face punishment IMO
very much so, and especially in science. Science has to be willing to accept disagreements understand that point of view and be willing to prove it or agree w/it. that's how science is supposed to work.
@@tric5122 Unfortunately that is not the case with todays "science." Today, the word science is just a useless word used to throw at someone that you politicly disagree with.
"If I am wrong the I want to know." Most people don't understand that. They think you debate them because you want to be right. Noooo. If I am wrong it means I learnt something new.
“Disagreements are not problems .. they are opportunities for everyone to learn something”. One of the most neglected pieces of wisdom on social media and something that should be added to the terms and conditions to be agreed by everyone pushing their own personal version of the truth on the Web. Well said :)
@@Wallyworld30 We learned that you can lose 10k even when you believe you are betting on a “sure thing”. If you don’t learn something from that and keep betting then I guess it is a problem.
@@ianbrown1474 Pretty sure you mean a different reality. In the past both left and right tolerated their POV but when each live in different realities that's always going to be a problem.
Huge respects to the professor for accepting defeat. Exactly how science should be. And huge respect for Derrick for his contribution to science. You have managed to earn even more respect from me by this video.
@@sleepyjoe7616 No. There was not a measurable, quantifiable answer with the pandemic. The best experts in the world could not have given you a definitive answer about which way to go forwards.
I love how the scientists explain confidence... I'm 80% sure... That isn't them being not confident it's them recognizing that they can be proven wrong and are open to further discussion. As engineers, we get in trouble a lot for communicating this way as most don't understand why. So we often say, we are as confident as we can be given the information we have to assure them.
Yeah, that's a big problem in any engineering discepline. Explaining to your, rarely engineer, managers that you just can't be sure that something can be done the way they'd like in the time they'd like.
So much this. I'm actually the business guy with a technical background who has to explain hand waving doesn't make the product work. Funny thing is that I've never had this problem with customers, only upper management.
In my experience, most people with science, math, or philosophy backgrounds are like this. Even people just interested (in a scholarly way, not a "like videos about it" way) are like this. It's just that these people are less loud and less liked in the media, so ignorance is overrepresented.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Even Einstein made mistakes. Science is based on observation, hypothesis, experimentations and predictability. You can be fooled by your observations and predict a wrong hypothesis. That's where the experiments are useful. I think ego is your worst enemy. You must accept that you're faillible, cause you're human. And the best way to learn is to stay open minded. On this, I wish you a wonderful day.
The three-roller cart being pushed by wood was an extremely good visual explanation that helped me grasp this more, thank you for finding that and sharing it!
@@vierikristianto1334 He pushes the wood. The wood pushes on the big wheel. The axle translates this force to the cart which then pushes on the axles of the small wheels. Now the small wheels are being pushed/rolled forward with a force from the ground turning them and the force from the cart. This is now a torque. Due to the differing sizes of the big an small wheels (which are touching), we basically have a gear system that now amplifies the force to push the big wheel backwards to push the cart even farther forwards. I suspect you missed that the big and small wheels were geared together as I don't think it was explicitly mentioned.
This makes me so happy! Seeing people, who disagree, approach each other with respect, and come together to agree on the best understanding. Where else, but in the scientific community, do you see this! Bravo, my good primate!
@Naughty Spicy Editz I'll take that bet. Send me your email address so that I can give you my bank account details. Or would you prefer to pay in cash?
@@jonathanjomen This. But I could buy that it was not intended as such, and was intended as an honest compliment; which all holds together if the smug cockiness is embedded in his base personality.
@@jonathanjomen Yeah, the professor was intimating that his own error rate was lower that his opponents. I guess error 'rate' is not determinate though.
I’ll have to disagree. Nominal is a relative term. I call this a gentleman’s bet because the search for knowledge was the primary reward. I think that’s evidenced by not only that he chose not to keep the money, but how he chose to give it away.
One idea to make this easier to comprehend would be to generalize it even further. The roller between the floor and wooden board was a great demonstration, so take it even further. I think it becomes: for any system with constant opposing velocity between two mediums, it is possible to use that motion to propel an object in either direction faster than either medium is moving. Those mediums could be 1 fluid and one surface, or two ropes, or two fluids, or anything else. The only caveat is that acceleration will be zero when the losses in the contraption equal the amount of power that brings the relative motion down to zero. With that general statement, the concept could be shown in some other interesting forms. Perhaps a clear pipe full of water, and make a device with a fan and wheels that moves through the pipe faster than the water is pumped. Glitter in the water could be used to show the velocity of the water. I'm sure others could come up with some much better ideas.
apparently on twitter he claimed he didn’t actually change his opinion on the matter rather he conceded because of a “technicality” not actually admitting he was wrong
The bigger the propeller, the more power it generates. At some point, that power, through proper gearing, should be enough to drive the car to a speed that's even higher than the speed of the wind itself. It's not about the speed of the wind, it's about the power that's derived from the wind driving the propeller. // Another point to consider is "tacking a sailboat" into the wind. You're using sails to drive a large heavy vessel forward into (against) the wind. You're using the power of the wind (via sails) to overcome (i.e. drive against) the force of the wind itself. That right there is proof enough that wind can be used to overpower wind.
Biggest of props to Prof. Kusenko for being a man of his word and most importantly a man of science! Putting his ego aside and accepting the evidence against his claim and admitting he was wrong. Pure class
This video is honestly great because being in academia you see all the time professors disagree with something in a seminar or whatnot, get refuted, and still remain confidently incorrect. This professor was able to back down and metaphorically shake hands on the topic. Very good example.
Unfortunately, you might want to read his so-called concession; it is an addendum to his original slide presentation that mostly claims he is correct and that he only concedes on a technicality. It doesn't contain any hints that there is lack of ego. It's why Derek was forced to show only the bottom snippet.
@@sdquad6 That's the great thing about math. If someone is incorrect, you can literally prove it to them. You just have to identify the exact flaws in their argument and present a fitting counterexample (easier said than done in most cases, but still theoretically always feasible).
I actually think this is really a great example of how terribly biased and arrogant many in academia are, Prof. Kusenko was arrogant enough to assume he was right without any doubt, perhaps because he has a higher degree in this field than Derek or is simply gotten used to being right. The fact he gambled money was academic grandstanding and effectively bullying, just to show how 100% convinced he was of himself and unwilling to even consider anyone else could be right. Real academic approach should be inviting open challenge of your ideas and being truly open to any outcome rather than simply trying to disprove an outcome that doesn't align with your interpretations (confirmation bias). Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill also quickly flipped to his side after hearing his arguments, as many do, showing their bias for the academic establishment. This attitude is perpetuating established concepts that may very well be wrong and limits true challenge of established ideas and exploration of new views. As people like Prof. Kusenko will try and put you down and bully you with monetary bets to drop your views instead of defending or discussing them in a mutually open and fair debate. In the end he just had to conceded and run off, not really a choice, but didn't seem to make any public statement so man of his word yes but with a big bruised ego for sure! An academic thinking they are 100% right is never a good thing, and not 'pure class' in my view. We can always learn more if we remain humble and open to other views.
The physical little wheel cart and wood board is a perfect "gotcha!" experiment. When you're trying to understand the prop cart example, I think its difficult because there are so many things going on, invisible wind, translated directional forces etc. As soon as you showed that little wheel cart, it was an immediate fundamental understanding, for me.
Unfortunately not a gotcha at all. The model assumes a contant force on the vehicle; yet in reality the force applied is consant from Veritasium's perspective but not the vehicle. As the vehicle approaches the speed of the wind, that force reduces to zero and the momentum allows the vehicle to surpass the windspeed montarily until the the new drag force from the front, puts the vehicle back in place. I don't really understand why the prof didn't pick up on this.
The 5 wheel vehicle perfectly demonstrated that it's possible to move faster than the force pushing it. And unlike with a weakly coupled force like wind the vehicle couldnt keep moving if the force stops. The wheels can't move if the board doesnt move. So... 1. It showed a vehicle moving faster than the driving force. 2. It eliminated the professors argument, that the force just slowed down, allowing the vehicle to be faster than the force due to inertia. 3. Also eliminated the argument that the wind speed was measured at different points, since you could clearly see the movement of the board and the vehicle relative to eachother. Which was all that was to show. Only way you could make this a more rocksolid demonstration is, if you replaced the wheels with gears and placed it on a toothed track/pushed with a toothed board to make any slippage that might occur with wheels impossible. (Edit: grammar²)
@@TheSymsky not "irrevocably" at all, please. Don't convince yourself based on flawed experiments. Please be more critical-thinking. The force is constant in the experiment because Veritasium is pushing it constantly....however, in reality, the force is proportional to the speed of the vehicle, so as the vehicle matches the wind speed, the force reduces to zero. Meaning the vehicle will go over the wind-speed momentarily, then slow down and go below the wind speed.
@@kailoucleary6025 that's seeing it under the wrong prism, I believe. In their software, so curious as they are about how the world works, their personal gain _is_ the betterment of common knowledge. They get a real kick out of it🙂
I think you should pay that $10K back to him. The kinetic energy of the vehicle converts to the KE of the propeller and somehow the KE of the propeller is supposed to make some kinetic energy for the vehicle. Assuming there is NO energy loss, we can conclude that the KE of the vehicle has improved itself. Meaning that the efficiency of conversion of KE of the propeller to the KE of the vehicle is more than 100%!!!!!
One of the ways we try to help people understand how the Blackbird works is by demonstrating the paradox using a wire reel and pulling on the wire. Counterintuitive results.
@johnborton4522 Sorry about the previous reply it didn't make sense. It is hard to get people to understand what is going on. Even the demonstration in the video with the big wheel attached to the smaller wheels was ,visually, counterintuitive. You must understand the following in order to overcome this seemingly illogical result. If two circles, of different radii , circumferences' are covering the same distance in the same amount of time, the smaller circle's(the wheels) circumference is curved further away from the ground and so has to move faster to travel the same distance, as the bigger circle's circumference, in the same amount of time, thus pushing the center of rotation, which the vehicles axles are attached to, faster than the propellers'. But these centers of rotation move at the same speed , evidently, the vehicle does not leave it's propellers' behind. When the downwind equals the speed of the propellers, i.e., no relative wind speed differential, it continues to accelerate by reversing the pitch. This was not mentioned in the video, and the three wheel demonstration does not satisfy the aerodynamics.
The wheel cart with the board was perfect, demonstrated exactly what you were explaining in an easier to grasp form which established the groundwork for grasping the function of the Blackbird.
Seeing is believing as they say. You might feel convinced that a model represents a phenomenon faithfully, but when you actually see it for real, your brain is forced into updating its neural models to account for what it's seeing.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Derek, can you just turn Veritasium into a gambling channel where scientists with opposing views put money on the table and face off to try to convince one another of the true answer? I'd watch that.
ill watch the hell out of it lol
HA! That would be the greatest show on Earth!
@@DyslexicMitochondria Hey bro i watch ur videoss. Love ur channeI
Veritasium sounds like a science thunderdome anyway :D
i think a lot of people would put money on the table to watch it ;)
the world needs more scientists, disagreeing about something and the only thing that happens is a very civil discussion.
It's like... they want to know the truth regardless of their beliefs... Those crazy scientists...
That's what happens when you get people that want to be correct instead of just be perceived as correct.
There is something terribly wrong with scientists. It's like they want to be wrong!
Respectful disagreement works wonders in science, too bad "social" science don´t work the same way.
@@heiarhognigunason1206 Social science works the same way
Wow, I forgot that rational and intelligent people who can have a disagreement, openly listen to arguments against their point of view, and then admit they were wrong and change their minds still exist. It's such a rare thing nowadays.
@Sanningen It is rare lol. Do you live in a cave?
No shame in making a robust logical argument and then dropping it for a stronger one.
Ya! But that can only happen when you are committed to facts and not committed to yourself ! And that's science !
The media bans and censors doctors who disagree with the media.
@@OGPatriot03 not to mention scientist getting payed by governments to sway the masses - Billy Nye needs to re-think Genders
Professor Kusenko gets my respect. Being able to accept being wrong and pay out the bet shows a lot about his personality. His students are lucky to have him as a mentor.
This is relatively obvious Physics problem.
Hope he doesn't teach Physics majors.
The problem was his initial response to the experiments. There were multiple examples, all with the same result. And he just refused to not only believe it, but to even bother to test it himself first. And I believe the only reason he was humble was because it was all public. He was so sure he was right, but got essentially destroyed.
Thanks for both of your comments. Love different opinions.
@@VicJangBro is the ultimate pluralist.
I would fire him, he clearly does not know anything about physics if he got this wrong
"You have a much lower error rate than most youtubers" is probably the highest mark of approval you can get from a uni professor !!!
well said, Lance friend.
He has a lower error rate than the professor himself at this point
Well my comment was deleted, but I still want to assert that the professor gave a real backhanded compliment in my opinion. Derrick doesn't really deserve to be talked down to and doubted like that and it's very gracious of him to take fault in botching the explanation but holy hell that uni prof needs to take notes from Bill Nye and just be nice.
I could say, Veritassium is already more than a simple youtuber/TH-cam channel.
@@kevinlasher2812 I think the professor was overconfident, put too much weight in weak arguments (like Derek getting into Blackbird many times??), and was also condescending as you suggested. Maybe he thought he would easily win $10000. The already existing treadmill-footage clearly showed the cart wasn't being "pushed forward"; there was no "bias" in that sense (the bias was in the professor's mind that people would be as silly as to do the treadmill experiment repeatedly and always "unconsciously" push it forward). But mainly, "the video falls short of providing evidence that the motion faster than the wind occurs with a non-negative acceleration and that it is not caused by the wind variability. " Derek's treadmill experiment clearly shows there is positive acceleration relative to the ground. Unless he was suggesting that somehow the wind behind the propeller acquires higer speeds, or to vary so much so as to get the negative acceleration he mentioned. Again, clearly not present in the treadmill experiments.
It seems he is trying to look gracious "Oh well, I had to concede if I wasn't 100% correct". But he was just wrong. To me, the main issue was understanding how the "turbine" worked. In any case, he should have gotten himself fully familiarized with the problem (or maybe he actually was, and is playing dumb) before betting that amount of money...Apparently didn't even check the literature on the problem. The professor suggested the bet right? Kind of weird. Not sure what he wanted to get out of it. Maybe "school a youtuber"? Prevent the spread of what he thought was pseudoscience? In brief, arrogance got the better of him.
Being wrong is painful, accepting that you’re wrong takes courage. Bet or no bet, I admire the professor and veritasium
It hurts even more when you present such a thought out argument and 10k
@@americankid7782 ain’t that the truth!
Exactly, go back 100 years and the great debates and clashes around different quantum behaviours.
Where was that acceptance? I didn't see any.
Read the supplied slides from him, he made it an all or nothing bet so it took just one error for him to lose the bet.
The professor is a true man of science. He was wrong, admitted failure, and learned something new! If only all scientists were so pure.
Not just scientists, but people in general.
His admission was less than complete if you followed the discussion on Twitter. It was basically “I was right, but there was a stipulation to the requirements I didn’t take into account”
It's hard to argue otherwise when the result is evident...
most scientists are tho
@@threepe0 : Did he say what that stipulation was?
i love that the professor only was challenging this point because he thaught "you made a mistake here which you dont often do and i dont want you to accidently spread misinformation since you usually are a very trustworthy source"
Ugh, the way he said all of that was so dismissive of all of the research and experimentation Derek and SO MANY OTHERS did, it's more like "silly kid, you don't know the REAL science. See, I'm a professor, which means if I think it's wrong, then it must be."
@@TheFinalFrontiersman right? and the fact that some of this was literally google able. it just shows you sometimes people's bias of what "makes sense" can get in their way of actually figuring out whats right.
@@TheFinalFrontiersman he was willing to pay $10k if he was wrong, and he was, so he did. Give that guy the benefit of learning as well, he had a lesson to take from this as much as we did.
@@TheFinalFrontiersman I love that you got it all wrong
@@geoffreyjohnston4047 he made a public bet, risking personal embarrassment, in the pursuit of figuring out what is correct.
"Disagreement in science are not problems, but they are opportunities for everyone to learn something" - Derek Muller......Nice one👌👌
but that's not what happened in reality, it's always more than just disagreement, ....ridicule, group bully, and personal insults are just some of other thing that got involved
@@electronresonator8882 It's view on science, don't relate it on past thing's 🤷...
"WHatever i said is immutable"
--- A stupid politician
I was like. Derek Muller... Damn dat name seems so fammiliar... I know it from somewhere... Oh...
Goosebumps
He disagreed, he still disagreed and then he realised that he was wrong and conceded his position. If only matters of politics and other public debate would be handled in such professional manner…
It's hard to know who is right and wrong in politics. Was an outcome directly caused by a policy or was it something else? In the world at large there are so many factors that it's almost impossible to show causality.
And there's no such thing as "settled science" else you've moved beyond science and are in the realm of cultism.
Politics is an Art of Deception. It cannot be handled in a reasonable manner because it's easier to fool people than to tell them they were fooled.
The main difference between politics and science is science deals with matters of truth, while politics deal with matters of morality. The ultimate goal of politics is to create a society that maximizes justice and comfort for the individuals in that society as well as determine who or what that society is. In a melting pot like the US with such diverse opinions and ideologies pepole will naturally butt heads.
If you reached the end of this then thank you for reading and please share your thoughts I like discussing this stuff on the internet, it's fun :)
@I love you but You can talk about the past though, and it's still hard to show direct causality. Look how many people still argue that communism and socialism would be good for people even though every attempt at it has ended very badly. The only people who seem to be able to convincingly draw conclusions of casuality from policies are largely ignored- Thomas Sowell for example. And even then it isn't FACT, it's just conjecture and anicdote.
That Professor was so bad a$$. He really argued his points well. And was skeptic enough to question the topic. In the end we all learned something because of him. So cheers to you!
Science was the winner in this argument
@@DyslexicMitochondria Hey bro i watch ur videoss. Love ur channel
$$
Yeah and me, just some dumb guy here watches the first video on this, and i'm like "yeah of course", then i watch the professors rebuttal, and i'm like "yeah of course", then the video finishes and derek puts the issue to rest, and im like "yeah of course"
so pretty much i get it
And I must say his points had a good foundation. Stuff like gusts of wind, different wind speed at different elevation over the ground, etc.
I don't even think he is wrong with those arguments. Which are basically about external influences on the experiment. That is the reason experiments have to be repeated to assure that the result is not just based on those external factors.
Being wrong is the best thing to happen, providing the opportunity to learn what one didn’t know before.
Being respectful and humble about being wrong is championship caliber!
Now this is how all science should be settled.
With $10k bets that represent much less to a TH-camr with 10 million subscribers than to a university professor?
I would definitely want it to be a video series where scientists and experts in different fields debate and present their perspectives
@@DyslexicMitochondria Omg hi bro! Big fan
@@DyslexicMitochondria subbed to you now
It would be a bit expensive not gonna lie.
Honestly that professor is a very respectable person. He made good arguments, and actually payed the money in the end,
Damn, just got spoiled
yes. he believed in himself and bet 10.000$ and that's something
Paid*
@@jd1800 Peighd*
The confusion of the physics professor is very odd to me, it is an interesting effect but the dynamics are not particularly complex, it's just somewhat counter-intuitive. My guess is that this was something of a publicity stunt on his part, a chance to play devil's advocate in a public forum, not an honest disagreement on how the device functions.
I would like to shake that mans hand. To admit to being wrong is hard. Learning from it is harder. My sincerest respect to this man, a true follower of the scientific method.
You probably could if in the area. Scientists and professors are usually approachable especially to those with genuine interest. When they do get media exposure it tends to be overwhelming, but day to day they will often just talk due to their passion (outside of celebrities).
Yes, very impressive. That is probably the biggest findung here, that there is at least one scientist left with integrity.
The Florida man would call it fake news, but fortunately he does not dabble into complex stuff.
Derek: willing to be wrong, even when he is sure he is right
Prof : Willing to bet he's right against popular and proven
Both : Learning from it ...
@@FelonyVideos What are you insinuating here? That most scientists are not honest? That's really a disingenuous and gratuitous comment to do, especially since I suppose you don't have much contact with the scientific process and research.
Those "wheels over ground speed VS propeller through air speed" explanation, the lever analogy, and the demo of the moving board with the big and small wheels contraption are all excellent. Thanks!!
This is one of the greatest science videos ever made, because it's showing actual SCIENCE. Disagreement is at the HEART of science, and this video shows how we go about resolving those disagreements. I love this so much.
We would need this kind of science for researching Coronavirus, and not this political mayhem.
Yes, it also shows that scientists are never authorities on truth, nobody is - the argument from authority is still a fallacy. Everybody can be wrong. It's morally wrong to censor "misinformation" based on personal opinions of scientists. This will not only corrupt scientists because power corrupts, but it destroys the only viable way to get to truth: Discussion among honest actors. TH-cam's anti-misinformation guidelines are very misguided and dangerous.
@@thulyblu5486 yes and no, there are some things we know for certain. How Neil Tyson said "we know the earth rotates around the sun, no one is going to change that. Now that we know it we can make more refined questions, lije what kind of orbit is that?". There is neither an universal truth or "universal lie", yes most things are debatable but not everyone has the authority and should have the power to do so, flat earthers do only damage and keep on beating a dead mule, sorta speak. Not saying you are or that im angry at you or something, and sorry if im rant-y, have a good day!
I agree. It starts with disagreement about what we see or understand, goes on to hypothesis, construction of experiments to test, and then refinement of understanding to explain it. it's a process, not any one result.
@@oammaslastnamethei3063 wrong... the point you miss is that sure, tyson is certainly right about the earth... but the point is that if joe bloggs the bartender with no scientific experience came along and refuted the claim with evidence to prove it wrong, tyson would happily concede and the science books would be happily rewritten...
I.e tysons perceived authority in science doesn't mean jack .. only his ability to back up his claims..
The idea you think that not everyone has the authority to debate a scientific principle goes against the exact thing that drives progress in science.... EVERYONE can and should debate all scientific principles if they can back their claims up... no matter their percieved authority
Respect to the professor. Willing to challenge a belief then concede the point when the evidence was compelling. This is pure science at its heart.
especially since some of his concerns/challenges are actually valid concerns that should be tested for, with a "fail condition" (i.e. how the hypothesis can be disproven)
the wind gradient for example, is a really good challange, because there is a diffrence in wind speed as you go higher, and a tall land based wind powered vehicle could make use of that to travel faster than the ground wind, even if the operator doesn't realise it.
to disprove the hypothesis that the wind gradient is causing the vehicle to appear to go faster than the wind, you just need to show that the vehicle is going faster than the wind at the highest point on the vehicle. (or test in an enviroment where the wind gradient is minimal, like in a hanger with a fan model and a treadmill, probably with a treadmill set with a variable speed control to simulate the vehicle moving across the ground. that way twind speed, and the vehicle speed.)
the gust hypothesis (a high gust of wind pushes you faster than the "normal" speed, which may look like you are traveling faster than the wind. The treadmill set up would also be a great way to disprove this hypothosis.
@@Reverend_SalemThe treadmill test is flawed though. By holding the car on the treadmill, the force the person imparted was greater in the beginning as it not only kept the car at a constant speed but also used the resistance of the wheels to build up the speed of the fan to the point where the gust from the propeller exceeded the resistance of motor powering the propeller at the treadmill’s speed. As the fan got faster and faster, she had to use less force to keep the car still, and eventually had to use slightly more force in the opposite direction to keep it still . She was essentially charging the propeller like a battery.
This would be like if there was a 30mph wind gust, but the resistance of the gears is increased such that cart can only reach 15mph and the rest of that energy is used to power the propeller. Then the wind gust drops to 15. You reduce the resistance of the gears so that all of the wind gust goes to pushing the cart forward, but the propellers still have inertia so they push forward with the energy built up under the 30mph wind gust. The cart will lurch forward faster than the 15mph wind gust, just as it did on the treadmill.
@user-vt4up5ij9d i ment a tredmill test where the fan pushes the cart forward, and the treadmill is calibrated to keep the cart relitivly centered. (i.e. the treadmill is reacting to the cart.)
basically, like chasing the cart with a fan. the fan is actually the thing doing the pushing, the treadmill is mostly to make it so you dont have to run around a large area with a fan.
what a professor he is . without analysing through and through he came to bet .
@@priestchatback brilliant comment. 👏
I salute the professor, without his courage and a open mind, everyone will be still in doubt.......
Exactly my thoughts, also 10k is a bit too much, this bet should be over a dollar so next person won't be afraid to bet.
This guy was my professor for an intro physics course and he was amazing
@@TheElijman Well, if you're ever in a position to bet Derrik then you can tell him that. Although if you were in such a position I would assume you would actually have $10,000 since you would be a physicist.
Agree. Hats off to the Professor!
@@kimyapeyvan654
I know! I love Professor Kusenko. Took him for Physics 1A
Wonderful point at the end! Last year I wrote software for NASA that did my job for them. I then retired happy. In my last two weeks, coworkers realized that they didn’t know enough about the physics behind my software. I was thrilled and commented, “I’m happy to be challenged!” I wanted them to USE my software confidently. I laid out the ENTIRE set of equations leading from start to finish. Everyone including me was satisfied. If there was a mistake (there wasn’t) I WANTED to know. Peer review is highly important.
If you don’t mind me asking how much did nasa pay you? Above or below 5?
@@bobbythomas6520 80k to do math & physics all day. Keep in mind I have a 25-year hole in my resumé raising 6 children. My daughter working on the ISS with no hole in her resumé but about the same 14 years experience makes a lot more. Being good at solving equations and good at math & physics pays off. 4 of our 6 children are engineers. The other two are therapists. They say engineers are crazy. They’re not wrong. We love our work.
It was probably a bit below $5
@@bobbythomas6520 85k. I was happy because I had a 25 year hole in my resume raising 6 children. My daughter passed 100k this year. She’s got no hole in her resume. I was satisfied having helped raise 4 engineers and 2 therapists who say engineers are crazy. They’re not wrong. We LOVE our job learning the breaking point of what we build. 😂
You people are too intelligent for me. I sure like the video.
"What i love about science is that disagreements are not problems, they are opportunities to learn something new." That is a very good message, a great mindset to have.
Love this comment, if everyone could have the same mindsett about everything we’ll be flying cars to mars at this time (srry, bad english I’m from Norway)
You don't know much about the scientific community they attack and harass anyone who has a differing view from the herd. Even when the person has loads of evidence to support their claim they shun them and try to discredit them without any evidence to back their own claims. They are afraid of change and stuck in a dogmatic view on many fronts.
@@LightBender777 you're right, but that's more an issue with scientists, not science
@@LightBender777 It isn't only scientists; it's human beings in general.
i'd like to see verita talk with nye about basic human biology such as how a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you cant swap between them then watch as a disagreement suddenly turns into a problem
Now THIS is a very good example of a scholar who is really dedicated to learning, not oneself’s pride. I honestly think UCLA is blessed to have such an awesome professor!
ucla has a prof that believes in perpetual motion devices lmao.
He also did utterly fail to do any research. The science was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The professor is going to be publicly known as a fool after this. He's going to be hearing jokes about this from students for the rest of his career. Even his wife will be pissed at him for losing $10k. I had a professor in engineering school that said it is impossible for an electric motor with a propeller on it's shaft to be able to lift it's own weight. I wonder if he ever sees these drones flying around and has reconsidered his position.
@@alexkram No. The professor was correct that the explanation was faulty in that there was a singularity issue. This prompted him to rethink a model which led to him believing that it wouldn't be theoractically possible. Turns out that if you use a nonlinear model for force and momentum, you get a perfectly convergent model for the power transfer.
Ok
I really love this kind of disagreement in science field. No one get attacked personally, not like every debate or disagreement on youtube these days.
these days?
That's because it's real science, argued with real facts, not social "science", argued with FUD disguised as facts.
@@carlosandleon well at least in my youtube recommendation. The title is about debating some theory and application in real life but turns out to be an ad hominem and that’s not a good way for other people to learn in my opinion
I disagree a bit here. when established research gets confronted with a new theory which fits better you will still see friction from established research groups. Because they are invested in their theory, mentally but also in capital aspect. And that investment makes it really hard for the new better fitting theory to really win ground.
Totally agree man. This is fun. That’s how disagreement should be , constructive !
I know this video is a couple of years old and i just watched it again. It's very well done and informative, but this time i caught the ad for Brilliant and the gear ratio question. I love it because that's an old brain teaser that we got as engineering students and even machinist's training. Very easy, the output speed is equal to the ratio of the input gear and the output gear, . regardless of the size of intermediate gears. There are no co-axial gear sets, only independent idlers, therefore one tooth is one tooth consistently through the train. The answer is 30/60, or 1:2. Output is 5 RPS.
Big respect to Professor Kusenko! Didn't just believe what he was told.
More respect that he actually honoured the bet!
@@StaK_1980 As if he had a choice. I can't imagine how he feels about this, R.I.P. Professor Kusenko
I think it is important to also acknowledge that being a skeptic isn't only about not believing what you are told. It also requires one to offer a counter explanation for a phenomenon and conceding when the evidence does not support your model.
So...if the wheels are turning the fan, once it is moving do you still need the wind?
@@andrewjenkinson7052 Yes, think about this from the perspective of the treadmill where the "wind" is just still air, and the ground is moving instead. From this perspective, "removing the wind" is equivalent to placing a fan that blows against the front of the car. This means the car will stop because it is not being pushed and the propellor is ineffective due to wind direction.
"Disagreements are not problems: They are opportunities for everyone to learn something" 16:08
I try to apply this in business and am regularly disappointed how often people take sincere curiosity and attempts at open-minded disagreement as a personal or professional attack. Cheers to the scientists who keep it real.
I feel you. Every time you question anything in business context you are marked as a negative influance, and often get met with attacks on your person and motives as a response to honest inquiery.
and god forbid if you applied logical evidence based analysis and scrutiny of every evidence to the victimhood claims of women or non-whites. Lol they come with harpoons wanting to kill anyone who tries to fact check them
@@sweepsweep5572 Strange, I find most people who claim to be using "logic and evidence" against victims of discrimination presume to know more about someone's experience than the person living it. Every single time I've witnessed someone claiming women and people of color don't face discrimination, it's only because they themselves are ignoring the mountains of evidence that the discrimination is real, dangerous, and deadly.
@@davetoms1 that's definitely not ALWAYS the case. Especially in this age of Smollets.
@@Nostalgia_Addict which is why I wrote "most people" and not "all people", despite it always being the case for my experiences engaging in those conversations.
I really appreciate the graciousness of both parties. As stated at the end, 'Disagreements don't have to be a problem (source of friction between sides) but an opportunity for everyone to learn.' If only the politicians could apply that principle, how much better the planet would be.
American politicians because they are mostly trained arguers (lawyers). Japan politicians for instance are mostly trained engineers and look how well they solve problems in Japan.
*Invades random middle east country
Everyone involved here is an absolute legend.
We need more of THIS at every level.
@Naughty Spicy Editz So, how you feeling
@Naughty Spicy Editz can i get the 20k
Bill Nye the science guy.
Everyone, really? 🤣🤣🤣
@Naughty Spicy Editz Not everything can be explained in laymen's terms. We do not understand science to the extent we think we know. I believe we only scratched the surface when it comes to science. There, that is another statement with no proof. But anyway, I will go with it.
True science happens when ego is shut out and practical science is honoured. High regards to you and the Professor. ,,👍
Yes that is why this bet is not very in the spirit of science. If you bet it means you are sure of what the awnser is wich is not really science friendly. BUT this is funny and I am pretty sure Veritasium is right, LET'S GOOOO 😂
@@maekoo2036 Hmmm, but the bet did result in more research and development, which then gave us more proof that the concept works. Without the bet this video wouldn't have happened, resulting in a potential loss of research.
@@maekoo2036 not really though. You can in fact bet on something you're absolutely unsure about. Like I don't know... betting on who will win on a wrestling match? 😅
That's why people bet and why people do it. It's a risk; If you're absolutely sure of who will win then you will always win and therefore makes the bet pointless. No one will bet with you. Once everyone know what to look for in order to be sure who will win then there will be *no* bets because most people is in the same side. 🤷🏻♂️
@@ETBrooD I don't need a bet for motivation to do research.
@@howardlam6181 everyone is not you
Fair play to the professor. Not easy to admit he was wrong publicly. Man of honour
Yep, people like him need to be celebrated, it is okay to concede for science.
The sign of a true scientist
I mean scientists are used to it. Theres always new evidence
but did he actually do that....or just secretly pay the fine and slink away without going on record(in a video reply) to announce he was wrong - I'd like to see the final response from Nye and especially Tyson too
@@BenjaminT.Minkler No need to flog someone over it. Conceding is enough; humans are still human and it always feels bad to be wrong.
Scientists are special in that they’re good at swallowing that shitty feeling because they know it holds them and the rest of humanity back.
Professor Kusenko is a man of honor and an example of what a man of science should be. Defending the principles he believes in, but be open minded and flexible to accept the new information and change his mind. This video is great for science communication.
Props to the professor for being a man of Honor. It's not easy to be wrong, especially not in the academic circles
I would be happy to be proven either correct or wrong, it really puts an end to a never ending knowledge struggle.
Maybe this will serve as a lesson to college students to not blindly believe everything their professors tell them
Hello friends 🥰
Because I'm not famous like other singers that's why no one see my music videos. Please see once and then decide ❤️
.. ✨..
.... ✨..
Nice pun
Hard cheese - they're only human, and we humans ARE fallible; that's the whole thing about learning - YOU LEARN things you didn't know before. Anyone too arrogant to be open to change of mind, is a fool.
If everyone treated disagreements as respectfully as these guys did, the world would be such a better place.
Edit: Its been a single hour... Turns out many of you agree. There is still hope!
We would be Much farther than we are now
Nah man gotta murder because they believe in a different version of the same god
Thank you Professor for questioning the analogy, it uncovered much more knowledge and clarity.
Decency and respect comes with education, knowledge and wisdom.
In an unrelated note, the guy who lost's dog was found beaten to death with a propeller sticking out his arse.
A solid example of how constructive criticism can actually help improve everyone’s work.
Not just that, but why it is absolutely a crucial part of the scientific process.
the prof hasn't improved. now he's just angry
That's ACTUAL science --- scientists super open to all challenges in order to maximize it! (Unlike this "pandemic")
But I don't have 10K to bet If I'm wrong or not
That's how science works.
Awesome understanding and explanation. The best part of this explanation is that it is mathematically and physically robust because of those equations of power. This is why Veritasium is my favorite TH-cam channel, a consistency of good quality content that can be seen in every video.
And with this, this video has become my favorite video on my favorite TH-cam channel.
Well done!⛵⛵
Wow-what a professor! He's a real one for actually conceding.
That's how you know someone truly wants to find the truth and not just be right.
Dude, you phoned up Neil Degrass Tyson, Bill Nye, and Sean Carroll to witness a $10,000 bet against a UCLA professor. What a freakin' life you live lol. Thanks for the knowledge, my friend!
You forgot "and won the bet"
Gigachad
Derek can just go "I know a guy..."
Better was that they all say his videos in general are accurate as well
Well everyone has a cirof friends... the most of us can call Derek the Weirdo, Deina the soccer mom from the Hood and the little Sku who actually ask for money to participate!
The board and wheel demonstration was a stroke of genius. The added complexity of aerodynamics was keeping me from developing an intuitive grasp on the car, and my aha moment happened as soon as I saw that demonstration.
Well done. You really are the best at this.
That experiment broke my brain. I get why it works, but think if I did that at a 6th grade science fair I'd have been burned at the stake for being a witch.
That was beautiful
there is a similar one about pulling a cord tied to a bike pedal from behind the bike and which way the bike in moving.
This ^
Yep, that was the demo that made it click for me!
Translation for an industrial engineer. An electric motor with a gearbox can increase the speed of the output with the same energy input. Energy requirement stays (relatively, minus friction) the same despite increased speed, and given there is enough torque to move said object on output shaft the output will move faster.
14:25 Now THAT is a perfect demonstration. You've replaced the "wind" with a rigid object and the relative speeds of the various components can be observed quite directly. For me it really helps put everything into perspective. Bravo.
I'm still working my head around the forces involved there.
So you apply a forward motion to the object, and that makes the wheel spin backwards propel it forwards at a higher speed than the force being applied.
Saying it out loud does make it work a little better in my mind, it's just the top wheel rotating backwards that feels strange, since how is it applying the forward motion when the wheel is moving backwards. Friction working oddly?
And thoughtfully put at the end of the video after all the complex explanations like the last nail in the coffin
@@Quiczor the top wheel is "rolling along" the board -- as in, it is using the force from the small wheels to traverse the board, as if the board were the ground on which it is moving.
While the board instigates motion in the system, what scales the speed is the gear ratio between the large and smaller wheels. This gear ratio is what enables the large wheel to sprint along the board, rather than *only* reacting to the force the board is applying to it.
Same
@@WarrenEnstrom understanding that gears are levers which give a mechanical advantage proportional to the gear ratio is the key to understanding what is going on here.
"a disagreement is an opportunity for everyone to learn something new" so simple and powerful. Just beautiful.
Yes, this is definitely a quotable quote. I'm saving it for future uses.
"Because I wanna know" is the biggest reason why we humans have come this far.
Thank you.
Religious people hate this kind of think
Just keep Politicians well away?
@@whoooshmeifyougay4482 Funny because Richard Dawkins calls "why" questions silly.
@@whoooshmeifyougay4482 you got a story to tell us buddy?
@@mohammedyasin2087 not really, only disconnected "why" 's are silly
Wow interesting~ Good for the professor having a level-headed conversation about this topic.
The extra depth showing exactly how this works was great. Thank you.
@Naughty Spicy Editz You still keeping that bet?
@Naughty Spicy Editz placing a wager on the outcome of a debate is a strange exercise. ANY debate will be inconclusive to some people. People will argue anything.
A lot of people seem to get hung up on perpetual energy - this cart is not perpetual energy, it's just a machine that exploits the difference in speed between the air and ground. That difference exists no matter what speed the cart travels, so there's always energy to exploit. That's it.
Didn’t knew you were into this type of stuff
@MehYam2112 isn't that term an oxymoron? What energy is perpetual? Nothing last forever right? Energy needed and all that, friction, resistance.
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” Arthur C Clark
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." Clarke's second law
@@maskettaman1488 the professor took his extensive knowledge on the matter and looked for issues in his video, this made him believe that this was misguided when it really was using a more abstract way of thinking that he had not thought of to that extent.
@@maskettaman1488 The old Russian dude said something was impossible and was wrong. It’s relevant.
I think it has a lot to do with this video
In other words, "Ok, boomer."
It's difficult to admit when you're wrong. I give mad props to professor.
I have a big... BIG... BIIIIGGGGG... muscles!!! HAHAHA!!! What did you think I was going for? That's so DIRTY of you! GAGAGAGA!!! I am the funniest TH-camr ever! Maybe that's the reason why I have TWO (!!!) HOT (!) GIRLFRIENDS. Thanks for being alive, dear jo
That's why he's a professor most likely!
@@AxxLAfriku wtf?
Mad props? Is that pun intended?
Imagine how much Bill Nye regrets that email though. He made the very same mistake that he explained in the email, again!
You guys rock, to have two scientists meet out here in public and risk money and reputation is highly commendable, kudos to everyone involved.
This was a great example of members of science working together to get to the truth....at least as we currently understand it ;)
Didn’t expect to see you here!
Wait until an antivaxxer chimes in and screams “fake wind!”
Hey, it's the Ender printer man!
@@rustyshackleford5542 wind isn't real. it's generated by the government to propel the birds that aren't real
@@rustyshackleford5542 Just think, anti-vaxers are in the government.
I'm glad the professor opened up the bet. It pushed everyone just a little bit further into understanding this concept. Him defending his point but then conceding in a civil manner shows a depth of character that I hope we will see more of in society. You guys both went about this the right way and my opinion of both of you is all the greater because of it.
All of us are.
They're now both Felons for illegal unlicensed sports betting at an amount of $10,000. Enjoy federal prison boys! lol!
I have a PhD in mechanical engineering studying fluid dynamics, and I still dont understand this concept.
@@arkie87 Look at is as purely mechanical advantage. So much force applied to an area, and then that force is converted elsewhere. The confusing bits are when people try to confuse the issues with things like passive propulsion like with sails or hot air balloons. If it helps, think more along the lines of thermodynamics. Like with solar powered refrigeration.
@@arkie87 Imagine we have a wind turbine spinning at 40rpm on a planet where the wind speed is fixed, can it go faster than that?
What if we added another wind turbine, that is attached to the main one with a gearing system and is accelerating it, now the main turbine is going faster than it used to.
I hope this helps
"You have a much lower error rate than most people on TH-cam..." That's a nice compliment honestly, Derek. Your channel and the Physics Explained are the only science channels that I would seriously consider binging videos for long hours. Great content from both places.
lol I thought it made him sound like a patronizing smug you-know-what. Can't bring himself to say "you're really intelligent", just "you're less wrong than most of what I watch", which implies he can discern all of it and just knows all the things.
What about vsauce?
DSFG
@@kevinlasher2812 Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the infallible arbiter of all truth, apparently.
@@martinshreder U got me ma bruda, about to say that exact thing
This is exactly how science should be.
A great example, and a great experiment.
Takes a big man to swallow his pride and admit defeat. Huge respect to the professor.
Good point. I don't know if I've ever bet someone money about something I was 100% confident I was right. I'm sure they're well compensated in their professions, but $10K is still very different than betting $10. I don't think too many people, regardless of financial standing, would agree to such a large bet if they believed there was a fair chance they'd lose. Maybe the professor understood that (including as Derek said...a public bet to boot) and was fine with it, but I'd bet (let's stick with $10K ;) ) he was confident he'd win. So right...says a lot about one's character by paying up a solid chunk o' cash like that.
Good character these days, is especially valuable. I believe we're more influenced than we might expect by others higher or lower nature even if only indirect or casual contact. Faith in humanity is underrated, but entirely within our power to improve.
unless it was done for money from youtube this guy is a full time youtuber ,,,there are lots of videos on here going back 12 years if this professor did any research at all he would have been stupid the take the bet .....me ....I think it was all done to make money and there was no money sent to him or he would have shown the transfer,
It's sad if correcting your viewpoint in the light of new evidence requires you to be a big man.
@@HeikkiJuvonen I don't think it was new evidence as there are videos and news reports on here 12 years old and you don't have to look far to find then ,,,,,just type 'faster than the wind ' and they are all there ...surely he has the brains to do that.
If all scientists placed a bet. Science would be a LOT better. Scientists would be far more careful of what they claim to be certain. No politics would come into it. Think about that. (But we must make sure no crowd funders pay their bet for them!)
I really couldn't grasp your argument at all until you did the board with the wheels. Then it clicked. Thanks for explaining it in so many different ways.
It took me a while to realize what direction the prop was spinning in. Then I finally understood it works on leverage.
I think he still does a bad job at explaining it. This is how I explain it: The body of the vehicle is making the vehicle move at a speed which is not much lower than the wind speed. The wheel and propeller are geared so when the wheel rotates at the speed of the wind, the propeller is pushing the vehicle forward. And, thanks to the same gearing, when the propeller is not pushing the vehicle forward, the wheel is moving slower than the wind, which makes the wind push the vehicle faster to get closer to the speed of the wind, which makes the vehicle move taster than the wind due to the propeller moving fast enough to increase the speed of the vehicle.
What clicked? Define power sources in treadmill and full scale experiments.
@@SapioiT Yeah yours wasn't clear at all
@@BigSmartArmed The wind powered the propeller by rolling the cart along the ground.
I love Professor Kusenko for his honor, he commends such respect
Though it's not really that honorful, it's just how scientists do things. If he wouldn't concede it in the light of overwhelming evidence, he'd actually lose respect from his colleagues.
@@Todestuete There are thousands of scientists rather lose a bit of respect from their colleagues than give up any amount of money. While like many others cases it can continue, with the Professor making new claims, continuing it. Though he didn't, that what makes him honorable, he a rare individual who goes with any claims they make.
Derek I implore you to make a video attempting to find flaws in the validations below; this would be the singly most important video you could possibly make and would be noted in the history books.
Visit Brilliant Light Power's site for the validation reports. I'm sure that Dr. Mills would be willing to accommodate you.
@@byoshizaki1025 why are you writing a message to Derek in this thread? He's not in this thread.
Actually he did not conceed, he just gave up implying that veritasium was tricking him with technicalities
Professor Kusenko is such a good embodiment of what the world should be like. Agreeing with the person he has a disagreement with even though he knew he would lose a lot of money. This is one of the few things that convinced me to pursue a career in science.
"Disagreements are not problems. They are opportunities for everyone."
Except when it comes to today’s politics and religion
@@Pastor_RogerSherwood or people with no common sense
@@exudeku wdym "or", theyre the same thing
@@exudeku true
@@exudeku
Common sense is not really Common in some people
i was in prof kusenko's class this year, amazing professor and props to him for arguing his points well as well as recognizing when to concede
So the prof paid the money?
@@otakurocklee yeah watch till the end
@@collinthomas6288 Ah thanks. I missed that bit.
He was my cosmology professor! Funny to see him in a veritasium video :)
Mad respect to the professor for changing his mind on this one. It takes a lot of courage and honor to do this in such a public matter AND we're all smarter for it - this is EXACTLY how science should work (minus the money part, but I know it'll be spent well and it did add to the drama very nicely!).
He said at the end of the video what the money is for
Derek I implore you to make a video attempting to find flaws in the validations below; this would be the singly most important video you could possibly make and would be noted in the history books.
Please visit Brilliant Light Power's site for the validation reports. I'm sure Dr. Mills would be more than happy to accommodate you.
Why "minus the money part"?! If everyone would put his money where his mouth is, when stating something, I think we would have a lot less false statemenets. If you really believe in what you say, put money on it! If you are not willing to put money on it, then you are not sure that what you are saying is correct... I think :P
I mean, the money did make for a good clickbait, which would help Derek make more money :D
@@byoshizaki1025
Dr. Mills thinks that Newtonian physics is the only way to describe the universe.
On that basis alone, his attempt to debunk Quantum Mechanics is bound to fail.
Hydrinos aren't a thing.
The reason it can go faster is the same reason tacking produces greater velocity than the wind speed. The prop is acting as a tacking type element which creates a localized vector.
Kusenko, you legend. Anyone who speaks his mind in a situation like this, gets corrected, and controls his ego like advanced human, putting fun and progress first is the MVP.
The prof is a man- a (mensch?).
I wonder if he did all this just for the celebrity/spectacle.
Back when the video came out he made a big twitter thread stating he still didnt believe Veritasium to be right, but that he only conceded on a technicality
@@jpietersen519 bruh but veritasium made it obvious that he's right
@@michaelbread5906 and be proven wrong in front of all his peers? No way. He did this because he though Veritasium was wrong, but gracefully conceded defeat
Props to the professor for being humble and dedicated to truth. This was an incredible series of videos. Also Xyla is awesome! Love her videos too! Congratz to everyone involved.
props....
I see what you did there ;]
last thing he wants is props i guess :'D
I'm interested to know if the prof was humble enough to admit he was wrong on camera or whether Derek was humble enough to spare him that.
Did you read what the professor wrote? He literally said he was correct, but he wasn't 100% due to a classification error, so he conceded.
I would love to see an official response from professor Kusenko. Not to humiliate him, but to have him explain where the flaws in is original calculations was, and how he came to the undeniable conclusion that Derek was right.
So would I. Usually the guy who doubts the most ends up understanding the best when he comes around.
see slides 6 and 7 of his presentation that's linked in the video description (Derek's presentation is also worth reviewing)
that would be interesting
you'll get to see his perspective
I bet 10k that he is not going to make a video explaining his mistakes. And that would be true science.
If you want to know where the flaws were in his math, look in Drela's paper (linked in the description). In short, there's no divide by zero problem. The UCLA guy made the mistake of assuming that propeller efficiency is a fixed number, when in fact it depends strongly on airspeed. Describing the propeller efficiency properly, as a function and not a constant, as Drela did, removes the 0 denominator and gives the correct result.
The toughest part about this is getting Neal to keep his mouth shut and not sucking up all the wind.
I love how Derek can just casually bring Neil and Bill and have them not be the main point of the video
You mean the couple of paid actors...
science dads
I love how he can just randomly call them up and ask for a favour.
How many people can do that?
@@morpheus587 Bill Nye is never an Actor, while he may be payed for the appearance
@@gerdsteinwender7758 keep telling yourself that 😜
Hats off to Prof. Kusenko for being a man of honour and requesting for all the results to be publicized regardless of the outcome. His arguments were quite convincing too, and I have immense respect for him for conceding the bet and admitting he was wrong about the problem in public.
Now if only the political landscape could learn to behave like these scholars and gentlemen ;)
I enjoy civil discussions I’m not a confrontational type of person unless necessary, but not a whole lot of people on YT can have civil discussions with out their egos being damaged. This is a breath of fresh air
Taking up a bet, changing his mind, and being honorable about it? Professor Kusenko is giving me way too much hope for humanity
Nah, this is an old topic with tons of papers about it, more like the popular tubers bribed the professor for another hit.
He is not a flat earther. That is all. A decent human being
That's why science has brought us where we are today because the ultimate goal is not beeing right, but finding out what's right.
@@moenibus Nobody is flat earther. We knew radius of the Earth since the Romans. It's a made up concept to divide and conquer America. If you don't fall for that, well ... rich vs poor, white vs black, man vs woman, gay vs straight ... something, somewhere, we will destroy America, one cr@p at a time.
Ikr XDD
The demonstration with the multi-wheel cart being pushed by the board was a brilliant experiment that suddenly made it so clear exactly what was happening.
Definitely the best demonstration
Agree
In fact those who're familiar with yoyos should've experienced phenomenon with the same principle.
That's the easy part, it's just gear differentials. The part that's hard to wrap your head around is where the extra energy comes from.
If it was just gear ratios, you could connect the rear wheels of a car to the front wheel with a gear ratio between and use that to accelerate the car. That doesn't work. I can guarantee it.
The real trick is extracting energy from the lower difference in wind speed and the car, compared to the car's speed to the ground.
Which you can do using gear ratios.
Agreed 100% everything clicked there
I love the line, "...disagreements are not problems. They are opportunities for everyone to learn something." This should be a motto for many aspects in our lives.
It is a good line, but does not describe science today. With Covid19, we learned that disagreements in the scientific community should be shunned and banned from public discourse.
the covid19 problem is ignorance rather than disagreement
Don't try to convince a climate "scientist" that disagreement is an opportunity to learn....lol, the science is settled, just ask Mr Hockey Stick Mike Moore or Cook the Books John Cook. Academic fraudsters should face punishment IMO
very much so, and especially in science. Science has to be willing to accept disagreements understand that point of view and be willing to prove it or agree w/it. that's how science is supposed to work.
@@tric5122 Unfortunately that is not the case with todays "science." Today, the word science is just a useless word used to throw at someone that you politicly disagree with.
It’s essentially a gear ratio problem.
Major props to the professor. It's incredible difficult to admit your wrong in your area of expertise. Congrats to him
I see what you did there... “props”. Clever. Lol
*you're* wrong
@@brackman71 Ironic
the prof is a clown. imagine how hard the rest of the world are laughing at america now.
@@papalegba6759 How was the professor a clown?
When people of science disagree, the world learns something new.
the great debate in astronomy is probably one of the most mind-blowing
Yeah, disagreement in science usually has people learning new things.
You mean people, not men. Wake up dude!
What happens when those disagreements are shut down and censored?
@@paulgibby6932 I'm sorry. Didn't mean it like that
"If I am wrong the I want to know."
Most people don't understand that. They think you debate them because you want to be right. Noooo. If I am wrong it means I learnt something new.
I don't understand that sentence
Exactly. I'll argue with someone I agree with. . . ESPECIALLY someone I agree with.
@@normang3668 Yeah, I do that too. But I don´t know why. :D
Absolutely ! it means you want to learn more and more ! simple !
@@Henrix1998 The sentence has a typo. It should be "If I am wrong, *then* I want to know."
Energy is conserved, not speed.
“Disagreements are not problems .. they are opportunities for everyone to learn something”.
One of the most neglected pieces of wisdom on social media and something that should be added to the terms and conditions to be agreed by everyone pushing their own personal version of the truth on the Web.
Well said :)
Disagreements are problems when they cost you $10G's.
@@Wallyworld30 We learned that you can lose 10k even when you believe you are betting on a “sure thing”. If you don’t learn something from that and keep betting then I guess it is a problem.
Tell that to cancel culture lefties
@@michaelm1573 Exactly my point - almost complete inability to tolerate a different point of view
@@ianbrown1474 Pretty sure you mean a different reality. In the past both left and right tolerated their POV but when each live in different realities that's always going to be a problem.
can we just say that Kusenko was a fair gamer, a good professor, and a cool person? love the attitude , love evrything about this video.cheers guys
Huge respects to the professor for accepting defeat. Exactly how science should be. And huge respect for Derrick for his contribution to science. You have managed to earn even more respect from me by this video.
Wish that they amended the net force equation and demonstrated the change in theory, because that point seem to stand idk.
I just love seeing people say "you can't" and then proven wrong.
Definitely not from me.
Wish the “experts” did this with “pandemic”.
@@sleepyjoe7616 No. There was not a measurable, quantifiable answer with the pandemic. The best experts in the world could not have given you a definitive answer about which way to go forwards.
Absolutely astonishing! Professor Kusenko - you have my deepest respect, thank you for questioning this and helping to create a better explanation.
I love how the scientists explain confidence... I'm 80% sure... That isn't them being not confident it's them recognizing that they can be proven wrong and are open to further discussion. As engineers, we get in trouble a lot for communicating this way as most don't understand why. So we often say, we are as confident as we can be given the information we have to assure them.
Yeah, that's a big problem in any engineering discepline. Explaining to your, rarely engineer, managers that you just can't be sure that something can be done the way they'd like in the time they'd like.
So much this. I'm actually the business guy with a technical background who has to explain hand waving doesn't make the product work. Funny thing is that I've never had this problem with customers, only upper management.
Hahaha, try medical science. Oh yes, this may solve your problem but there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that it may kill you...
@@gonzalollorensmiralles1706 How many medications where, and probalby are, there that regularly make people sick, affect genes and even kill some?
when I use that is because I almost sure or I have a feeling I overlooked something and it will get me.
Congrats to everyone, especially the professor. Few people nowadays have the guts to change their minds. We all could learn something there.
Ahem Fauci haha
In my experience, most people with science, math, or philosophy backgrounds are like this. Even people just interested (in a scholarly way, not a "like videos about it" way) are like this. It's just that these people are less loud and less liked in the media, so ignorance is overrepresented.
There was *ten grand on the table.* I don't see a scientist's wager with stakes that high since Pascal's wager
Spoiler?
Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
Even Einstein made mistakes. Science is based on observation, hypothesis, experimentations and predictability.
You can be fooled by your observations and predict a wrong hypothesis. That's where the experiments are useful.
I think ego is your worst enemy. You must accept that you're faillible, cause you're human. And the best way to learn is to stay open minded.
On this, I wish you a wonderful day.
The three-roller cart being pushed by wood was an extremely good visual explanation that helped me grasp this more, thank you for finding that and sharing it!
Hey dude. In the other hand, it blew my mind. Can you explain which force cause the 3 roller to move?
@@vierikristianto1334 He pushes the wood. The wood pushes on the big wheel. The axle translates this force to the cart which then pushes on the axles of the small wheels. Now the small wheels are being pushed/rolled forward with a force from the ground turning them and the force from the cart. This is now a torque. Due to the differing sizes of the big an small wheels (which are touching), we basically have a gear system that now amplifies the force to push the big wheel backwards to push the cart even farther forwards.
I suspect you missed that the big and small wheels were geared together as I don't think it was explicitly mentioned.
@@ndvorsky so, is it the same concept as Blackbird?
edit: thanks for the detailed explanation. sorry, I'm not good physics, just curious 😅
@@MarkWTK Yeah, Identical concept simply replacing the wind with a solid object that you can actually see interacting with the cart.
Yes great representation and it helped me understand it a lot better. Crazy to watch the little cart accelerate like it did
This makes me so happy! Seeing people, who disagree, approach each other with respect, and come together to agree on the best understanding. Where else, but in the scientific community, do you see this! Bravo, my good primate!
This was intense enough to be made into a Netflix original dramatic series.
it was better than that crap on netflix
@Naughty Spicy Editz i saw the whole video and....
spoiler alert
veritasium won
@Naughty Spicy Editz I'll take that bet. Send me your email address so that I can give you my bank account details. Or would you prefer to pay in cash?
Don't include Bill Nye. The dude was clearly out of his element.
Netflix would made it overdramatic, but your point stands
As a professor, I must say, it's awfully nice to imagine what it would be like to have $10,000 to throw away on a bet.
Tru most educators are horribly underpaid
Get a tenure at UCLA
Edit:UCB*
The real question, are you going to show this to your students after the next semester starts?
@@ghouldrago360 most "educators" peddle propaganda and junk science.
Don't encourage them.
Especially in California
"You have a much lower error rate than most people on TH-cam." That is low-key the best endorsement from a physics professor I've ever heard.
... in context, it sounded like a thinly veiled insult to me ;)
@@jonathanjomen This. But I could buy that it was not intended as such, and was intended as an honest compliment; which all holds together if the smug cockiness is embedded in his base personality.
@@FlyNAA ... which it probably is ...
He intended it to be a compliment - it just didn't sound like one to me.
@@jonathanjomen Yeah, the professor was intimating that his own error rate was lower that his opponents. I guess error 'rate' is not determinate though.
It's called a backhanded compliment. They are very common in my blue collar line of work.
A gentleman’s bet for sure. Sounds like the journey was more rewarding than the spoils. Congratulations. I like how you chose to pay it forward.
No, a Gentlemen's bet is about finding the truth, and wagering a nominal sum, not taking a punt and hoping to win 10k.
I’ll have to disagree. Nominal is a relative term. I call this a gentleman’s bet because the search for knowledge was the primary reward. I think that’s evidenced by not only that he chose not to keep the money, but how he chose to give it away.
@@Cheepchipsable Hmm, well. Then don't bet then? If you bet then you gotta have something to push the motivation of people.
@@wannabefunnyman I agree.
@@imnoob6007 yeah sometimes being right is enough motivation..
One idea to make this easier to comprehend would be to generalize it even further. The roller between the floor and wooden board was a great demonstration, so take it even further. I think it becomes: for any system with constant opposing velocity between two mediums, it is possible to use that motion to propel an object in either direction faster than either medium is moving. Those mediums could be 1 fluid and one surface, or two ropes, or two fluids, or anything else. The only caveat is that acceleration will be zero when the losses in the contraption equal the amount of power that brings the relative motion down to zero.
With that general statement, the concept could be shown in some other interesting forms. Perhaps a clear pipe full of water, and make a device with a fan and wheels that moves through the pipe faster than the water is pumped. Glitter in the water could be used to show the velocity of the water. I'm sure others could come up with some much better ideas.
Damn the professor really proved the value of his word, as well as his character as a person. Huge respect
Changing one's own opinion is a sign of intelligence and understanding of the subject. Props to all the involved!
Hehe. Props...
apparently on twitter he claimed he didn’t actually change his opinion on the matter rather he conceded because of a “technicality” not actually admitting he was wrong
@@seanc.682 If that's true, then it's rather arrogant of him to not admit defeat.
Very important, being able to admit and understand why you're wrong is the key to learning.
This is a fundamental tenet of every scientific discipline.
The bigger the propeller, the more power it generates. At some point, that power, through proper gearing, should be enough to drive the car to a speed that's even higher than the speed of the wind itself. It's not about the speed of the wind, it's about the power that's derived from the wind driving the propeller. // Another point to consider is "tacking a sailboat" into the wind. You're using sails to drive a large heavy vessel forward into (against) the wind. You're using the power of the wind (via sails) to overcome (i.e. drive against) the force of the wind itself. That right there is proof enough that wind can be used to overpower wind.
I learned that if a UCLA professor says I’m wrong, then I should hire a MIT professor to prove him wrong
I used the professor to the professor
@@brodypaine i use professor to beat professor
What if they end up agreeing? Who will you get?
I learned that a perpetuum mobile randomly trumps any level of professor.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I’ll get an idiot to agree with me
“Disagreements are not problems, they are opportunities for everyone to learn something”
- Derek
Meanwhile our government and media censor medical information relating to the virus, in some western countries even jailing doctors.
@@OGPatriot03 who is jailing doctors?
@@lassea Australia
Except for COVID-19 where science is a dogma
In modern society, disagreements are big problems and a reason to orcastrize people and murder someone.
Biggest of props to Prof. Kusenko for being a man of his word and most importantly a man of science! Putting his ego aside and accepting the evidence against his claim and admitting he was wrong. Pure class
This video is honestly great because being in academia you see all the time professors disagree with something in a seminar or whatnot, get refuted, and still remain confidently incorrect. This professor was able to back down and metaphorically shake hands on the topic. Very good example.
Unfortunately, you might want to read his so-called concession; it is an addendum to his original slide presentation that mostly claims he is correct and that he only concedes on a technicality. It doesn't contain any hints that there is lack of ego. It's why Derek was forced to show only the bottom snippet.
@@koronavarus7557 sadly, that doesn't surprise me.
@@sdquad6 That's the great thing about math. If someone is incorrect, you can literally prove it to them. You just have to identify the exact flaws in their argument and present a fitting counterexample (easier said than done in most cases, but still theoretically always feasible).
I actually think this is really a great example of how terribly biased and arrogant many in academia are, Prof. Kusenko was arrogant enough to assume he was right without any doubt, perhaps because he has a higher degree in this field than Derek or is simply gotten used to being right. The fact he gambled money was academic grandstanding and effectively bullying, just to show how 100% convinced he was of himself and unwilling to even consider anyone else could be right.
Real academic approach should be inviting open challenge of your ideas and being truly open to any outcome rather than simply trying to disprove an outcome that doesn't align with your interpretations (confirmation bias). Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill also quickly flipped to his side after hearing his arguments, as many do, showing their bias for the academic establishment. This attitude is perpetuating established concepts that may very well be wrong and limits true challenge of established ideas and exploration of new views. As people like Prof. Kusenko will try and put you down and bully you with monetary bets to drop your views instead of defending or discussing them in a mutually open and fair debate. In the end he just had to conceded and run off, not really a choice, but didn't seem to make any public statement so man of his word yes but with a big bruised ego for sure! An academic thinking they are 100% right is never a good thing, and not 'pure class' in my view. We can always learn more if we remain humble and open to other views.
The little wheel thing is what solved it for me. I understood the explanation but seeing it in visible terms made a difference.
The physical little wheel cart and wood board is a perfect "gotcha!" experiment. When you're trying to understand the prop cart example, I think its difficult because there are so many things going on, invisible wind, translated directional forces etc. As soon as you showed that little wheel cart, it was an immediate fundamental understanding, for me.
omg same
the little five wheel car was an absolutely brilliant way to demonstrate the principle at hand clearly and irrevocably
Unfortunately not a gotcha at all. The model assumes a contant force on the vehicle; yet in reality the force applied is consant from Veritasium's perspective but not the vehicle. As the vehicle approaches the speed of the wind, that force reduces to zero and the momentum allows the vehicle to surpass the windspeed montarily until the the new drag force from the front, puts the vehicle back in place. I don't really understand why the prof didn't pick up on this.
The 5 wheel vehicle perfectly demonstrated that it's possible to move faster than the force pushing it.
And unlike with a weakly coupled force like wind the vehicle couldnt keep moving if the force stops. The wheels can't move if the board doesnt move.
So...
1. It showed a vehicle moving faster than the driving force.
2. It eliminated the professors argument, that the force just slowed down, allowing the vehicle to be faster than the force due to inertia.
3. Also eliminated the argument that the wind speed was measured at different points, since you could clearly see the movement of the board and the vehicle relative to eachother.
Which was all that was to show.
Only way you could make this a more rocksolid demonstration is, if you replaced the wheels with gears and placed it on a toothed track/pushed with a toothed board to make any slippage that might occur with wheels impossible.
(Edit: grammar²)
@@TheSymsky not "irrevocably" at all, please. Don't convince yourself based on flawed experiments. Please be more critical-thinking. The force is constant in the experiment because Veritasium is pushing it constantly....however, in reality, the force is proportional to the speed of the vehicle, so as the vehicle matches the wind speed, the force reduces to zero. Meaning the vehicle will go over the wind-speed momentarily, then slow down and go below the wind speed.
Props to the professor, admits when he is proved wrong and contributed to the knowledge around this topic
Amazing to see real science minded people who care more about the betterment of common knowledge, rather than prioritizing personal gain.
@@kailoucleary6025 that's seeing it under the wrong prism, I believe. In their software, so curious as they are about how the world works, their personal gain _is_ the betterment of common knowledge. They get a real kick out of it🙂
"Props." I see what you did there
I think you should pay that $10K back to him.
The kinetic energy of the vehicle converts to the KE of the propeller and somehow the KE of the propeller is supposed to make some kinetic energy for the vehicle.
Assuming there is NO energy loss, we can conclude that the KE of the vehicle has improved itself. Meaning that the efficiency of conversion of KE of the propeller to the KE of the vehicle is more than 100%!!!!!
Also amazing seeing as, you know, he's giving away 10,000!
seeing people disagreeing like this just gave me some hope for humanity.
Science has never been a consensus! Take one look at Elon musk’s work?
Most non-Americans do this every day.
@Tom R LOL right Bill Nye the non science guy! He was an engineer not a scientist lol
Aristotle's wheel paradox explains everything here. Amazing how none of the professors picked this up.
One of the ways we try to help people understand how the Blackbird works is by demonstrating the paradox using a wire reel and pulling on the wire. Counterintuitive results.
@johnborton4522 Sorry about the previous reply it didn't make sense. It is hard to get people to understand what is going on. Even the demonstration in the video with the big wheel attached to the smaller wheels was ,visually, counterintuitive. You must understand the following in order to overcome this seemingly illogical result.
If two circles, of different radii , circumferences' are covering the same distance in the same amount of time, the smaller circle's(the wheels) circumference is curved further away from the ground and so has to move faster to travel the same distance, as the bigger circle's circumference, in the same amount of time, thus pushing the center of rotation, which the vehicles axles are attached to, faster than the propellers'. But these centers of rotation move at the same speed , evidently, the vehicle does not leave it's propellers' behind. When the downwind equals the speed of the propellers, i.e., no relative wind speed differential, it continues to accelerate by reversing the pitch. This was not mentioned in the video, and the three wheel demonstration does not satisfy the aerodynamics.
The wheel cart with the board was perfect, demonstrated exactly what you were explaining in an easier to grasp form which established the groundwork for grasping the function of the Blackbird.
It looks unreal. I want one.
Yes that settled it for me as well.
Seeing is believing as they say. You might feel convinced that a model represents a phenomenon faithfully, but when you actually see it for real, your brain is forced into updating its neural models to account for what it's seeing.
That was the "oh snap" or "aha!" Moment for me. Great visual.
Excellent moral of the story. "Disagreements are opportunities to learn."
and profit =D