"It's log, log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood. It's log, log! It's better than bad, it's good."

@hermitoldguy6312

2 жыл бұрын

Log from Blammo kzread.info/dash/bejne/X5qFqbKThKipidY.html

@weevilinabox

2 жыл бұрын

Fingers crossed for an electric fence in Bruce's next video.

@spacepope-1

Жыл бұрын

Man I miss the 90s

What an absolutely elegant way to display the laws of motion!

Thanks for the excellent wide variety of examples and concepts with really simple supplies.

I remember that when we studied Newton's laws of motions we had to memorize them word by word without actually being able to imagine what they may look like in real life, Now, everything looks clear in just 8 minutes 👍 7:45 This is really a fun game, and to make it more playable I may mark multiple areas to hit from different angles. Thanks Bruce 🚀👍

Thank you for all you do. I wish more teachers would be like you.

The demonstration at 2:22 is an example of why vehicle occupants should wear seatbelts.

Keep up the good work teaching the youth....and ME!

What's neat is that in high school we use blocks but in college all my professors opted to make everything frictionless spheres and suddenly air had no resistance ;)

I like the small group settings for your classroom demonstrations. It looks like your students enjoy your projects too.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

our class numbers run about 20 up to 28

Thank you for this video. I wish I had thought of these kinds of experiments to verify Newton's Laws of Motion.

You are the best... you made me want to be kid again. Thanks for these awesome videos

Awesome Bruce, thank you for sharing

Your students were and are blessed to have you as there teacher.

Thank you very much for this. Simple and brilliant.

One of the best things I have seen today! Really appreciate it sir..

Very nice and good presentation!

Lovely use of basic equipment. You don't want to catch your fingers between them when you are doing those demonstrations. (Obviously I commented before you covered that point at 07:06 😆😆)

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

I tried to keep it simple, makes it easier to follow. Quite often I have students. (8th graders) trying for themselves andintentionally placing their hands in-between. Younger kids might be a bit more "fragile"

Great demonstration

Sir please provide a video for pulley-problems. And thank you sir for this amazing video❤️

Wonderful explanation

Amazing as always you are

Now I feel foolish for going out of my way to make the wheels of my carts as low friction as possible - on a budget... I've been using old hard drives sawn in half to use the discs (platters) as very low friction wheels, making three wheeled carts that run over pairs of fine bare copper wire to trigger electronic timers (I used my old Yamaha AW4416 footswitch input to START and STOP the digital counter, counting in 1/1000ths sec.) That proved very useful for proving to a "doubting Thomas" that halving the mass of an object launched by the same spring, really DOES make it go 1.414 x faster, not twice as fast as he insisted must be the case. However, he still wasn't convinced but it was enjoyable to prove it for myself. I was shocked that my results came out at 1.413 (multiple runs averaged out) and when I repeated this long winded experiment with the launch spring fixed to the launch "base" rather than being attached to the cart itself (which he protested accounted for it not going twice as fast) the results were only a shade different... 1.399 perhaps - I can't recall now as it was a year ago - last March I think. Anyway - I admire the simplicity of your experiments - They're fantastic - I've worn myself out trying to make virtually "perfect" experiments in the pointless pursuit of convincing certain people that nature DOES obey kinetic energy rules. Then again, I suppose it does help having a woodwork dep't and large clear spaces to work in and an appreciative audience making it all worthwhile. You certainly deserve those things. Incidentally - I tried making an AIR TRACK following a teacher's website details (I'm not a teacher - I'm just a barely educated bloke who is interested in learning all this stuff very late in life) ... but being made of square plastic drainpipe, as instructed, it was a BIT fussy, a BIT tricky leveling 2.5 meters of it ... the sides were a LITTLE bowed so the shorter gliders must have been catching a little - but it was still useful and fun - I could highly recommend... but when I got fed up of the limitations, I realised it was actually easier to make it from alluminium angle BOXED together ... the 1mm holes were extremely difficult to drill UNTIL the drill broke and ironically that made it SHARPER - then it was like drilling through butter. Although I've used it a bit, I've lost the will to bother uploading any.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Stephen, for the short time when I taught some high physics I found the need to be more precise, made the air tracks, air table and forever battled with making them work as they should, on occasion I've also borrowed the dynamic carts with the low friction bearings. Working with middle school it's more about starting out with trying to establish a basic understanding of the concepts and for that I think the blocks have gotten the point across.

Way to hook me into the next video, Bruce. Came for the science - staying for the games

I wished I have teacher like u

wow nice 👍

So classic!

Thank you for this video. I am June From Indonesia. I teach Physics in High School.

Very cool! If anyone is interested, I’ve modified this to have inset eye hooks on the side vs the dowels so they stack better.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

What I like to hear, take an idea and make it better.

@franktuttle5271

2 жыл бұрын

It was on a Twitter thread about your video - thank you for sharing!

You are amazing

Mr Yeany, those experiments are really great! I'll use them in my classes if you don't mind. I am physics teacher from Serbia.

@YeanyScience

Жыл бұрын

please use anything on my channel, that is why I post them

Now all you need is wood blocks that fall apart in a collision and then it's a toy all kids would want!

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

I read this and laughed out loud, we did have a block that broke apart and the kids taped it back together and continued playing

I remember you showed us this in class Mr.Yeany

@S1N_5826

2 жыл бұрын

I never knew you had such a soft voice lol

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

Since I was not with your class the whole year, there were quite a few things I never got to show your class.

So then correct me if Im wrong: 2 Cars colliding head on, both going at 100, is equal to a single car colliding a solid wall at 200.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

if you are looking at kinetic energy that's not true. The kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional to its mass and directly proportional to the square of its velocity. So an object with twice the mass at the same speed will have twice the kinetic energy but if the same object, in this case a car has twice the speed, it will have 4 times as much kinetic energy.

@okkrom

2 жыл бұрын

@@YeanyScience Yikes I'm lost. But you gave me enough to reserach it, thanks!

@carultch

Жыл бұрын

@@okkrom Mythbusters tested it. They had a test car collide with A) a rigid wall at 50 mph, B) with an identical car, each at 50 mph in opposite directions, and C) with a rigid wall at 100 mph. This myth originated as Jaime's oversight statement in a previous episode, that an audience member corrected. They put it to the test at small scale with clay disks and at the full scale with real cars. Unmanned, of course. The car in trial A, experienced a crumpled engine compartment, and a cabin that was mostly intact. This is how car manufacturers design cars to maximize the odds of crash survival, and 50 mph is a reasonable initial speed to expect for a typical accident. Trial C's car exploded its entire front half beyond recognition from all the damage. And Trial B looked a lot more like two copies of Trial A, than anything remotely resembling Trial C.

@okkrom

Жыл бұрын

@@carultch Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll see if I can find the episode online.

I made a set of these blocks with my coworker and they are AWESOME! I'm currently in the process of creating a lab write up. I'm wondering if there are any labs already written using these blocks. Does anyone know if those exist and where they can be found? Thanks!

@YeanyScience

Жыл бұрын

I don't have any write-ups for them and I don't know of anyone that may have, I made it up as a cheap way of getting Newton's laws across. However, I would love to post a lab write-up if you make or find on.

Who says that "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear"? These really cut to the essence of Newton's laws.

Where do you buy the heavy duty bands?

@YeanyScience

Жыл бұрын

I got them at Walmart, Staples has them also

What sized eye hooks do you recommend?

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

an exact size in not important as long as it can fit in the drilled hole and be open wide enough to get the rubber band on and off without too much trouble

At least these kids are there to be educated 👍

They could do the block games at the Summer Olympics as the equivalent of Curling.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

the students did really like the game

liked for algorithm

i like bruce yeany 😃😃😃

04:24 I said uhhh, I tought it would take your finger .😅😅😅

Hey Bruce! I'm a Science Teacher with a small business in Australia supplying Science equipment. I'd love to make these blocks and sell them at a fair price to other Aussie teachers. Can i get your blessing please?

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

you have it

@jacobstrickling4818

2 жыл бұрын

@@YeanyScience Thankyou Mr Yeany!

The first law is not correctly shown: It's actually the static friction force on the upper block acted by the lower block which sticks the upper block on the lower block. If you apply a strong force on the lower block, the maximal static friction force is exceeded and now only sliding friction is acting on the upper block. The sliding friction is much smaller and ensures that the upper block experiences much less acceleration than the lower block. The whole experiment has nothing to do with inertia. This is a common misconception. To show Newton's first law, all you have to do is throw the block. Then you observe that the horizontal velocity component remains almost the same because there is no horizontal force component acting. This is inertia.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

Frictional forces and static and sliding friction should be and are discussed when this is demonstrated, I describe any object the is thrown shot, or propelled in some form as a simple way of demonstrating as an example of inertia, having it sit on top of the block allows for the very discussion you stated on static friction not able to apply enough force to the top block from stopping when the bottom on stops, but I would disagree with you statement that this is incorrect.

I was thinking about Einstein. 3:00 The solo brick is faster than the duo/trio brick. Even with the same force. But now, if the force is gravity, the weight of the solo brick or the duo brick don't matter, they will fall at same speed. That's what feels illogic for me. (I think it's because friction but still)

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

I would say go back look at the one clip where the rubber band is doubled, applying twice much force and the block is doubled giving twice as much mass. It accelerated at the same rate as the single rubber band accelerating a single block. Dropping them is the same idea, twice as much force moving twice much mass accelerates at the same rate as something with half the mass since the force pulling it down is half as much force

@hermitoldguy6312

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine this ... (let's suppose the wood blocks weigh 200 grams each) Instead of using elastic, have a string from the block to a 500 gram weight hanging off the edge of the table, and another 500 gram weight for the two blocks. Now they both have the same force trying to move them (f = m.a 0.5 x 10 = 5 N), but they have different masses (200g and 400g). Will they move at the same speed ?

You use the expression 'resistance to changing its motion'. I suppose you use the word 'resistance' because that is a word that the viewers will recognize. But I think there is rather a disadvantage to using the word 'resistance'. The word 'resistance' is already in use for cases that involve friction. The more viscous a fluid is, the more it resists motion through it. I prefer the word 'opposition'. Inertia opposes change of velocity, but cannot prevent it. As we know: with friction: if there is not enough force to overcome static friction then the object will not move at all. With inertia: there is no threshold. A smaller force will cause smaller acceleration, but no matter how small, if a force is there: a corresponding change of velocity will result. I think it is worthwhile to give students from the very start strong cues that Inertia is something with unique properties. Inertia cannot be categorized as a force, even though inertia is very forceful indeed.

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

thanks Cleon, this is a starting point for younger students to recognize the behavior of forces on motion. I would hope that anyone uses this as a teaching this would try and delve deeper

You look like happy from Spiderman movie

Now do it on a perfectly frictionless surface in a perfectly frictionless environment! ...... 😂

The conclusion made by Isaac Newton,stating that the change of movement of some bodies is caused by the impact of other bodies - is wrong and does not correspond to the facts.

Those tables are flat. Flat earth confirmed. The rubber band is stretchy. Big Bang confirmed. These kids are enjoying learning. Bruce Yeany confirmed.

@YeanyScience

Жыл бұрын

LOL, so you are saying I've confirmed the earth is flat?

@michaelwinter742

Жыл бұрын

@@YeanyScience Am I saying the earth is flat *in your classroom*? Yes. Am I saying that you reach a worldwide audience with your message? Yes. Am I saying that all those classrooms are also flat? Yes. Connect the classrooms together and you’ve got a flat earth filled with kids who are learning to love science. Now, just don’t you go checking the angles between those flat earth classrooms, because it’s 360 degrees. A full 360 degrees? Well, that’s flat, too! Just having fun. I love your content. I know the world is actually a ovular projection onto a two dimensional hologram.

At 4:50 you demonstrate that the same Force produces very different amounts energy. Do you actually believe that the twice as massive blocks where unable to absorb one half of the force? That that force / energy just disappeared? 1/2 vmv is not a rational definition of energy and these simple experiments prove it.

@stephenbrough8132

2 жыл бұрын

On a related matter you've discussed many times over the past year, about an ideal LEVER balanced on a fulcrum 1/3rd along, claiming that a 2MASS on the short end, could not tell the difference between ANOTHER 2MASS at the mid point of the longer side OR a 1 MASS placed at the very end of that longer side ... because they would, of course, balance out. BUT ... ... I've tested this and found that in the LATTER case, the lever moves much slower, making it very easy to tell which case applies. You used to claim that if we put a curtain across to obscure our view of whether it was a 1 MASS or a 2MASS balancing out the 2MASS on the shorter end, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL ... But that is untrue ... We CAN tell ... If it's the 1MASS at the far end of the long arm of the lever, then the lever will be SLOWER to balance when we place the 2Mass on the short end ... it will be SLOWER, because the 2MASS will be effectively pressing down for a LONGER TIME to account for the DOUBLED VELOCITY of the 1MASS at the end of the long arm - and the consequential extra kinetic energy, which I realise you dispute. (Force = mass x distance over time squared, so unless an educated person corrects me on this, my understanding is that the extra TIME the 2MASS is bearing down on the short end, to re-balance a 1MASS at the end of the long arm, that TIME has to be squared (because velocity = distance over time - and acceleration = distance over time over time = distance over time squared) ... and so, to the best of my understanding, that is why your claim that the KE formula suggests there is a GAIN in energy from levers, is incorrect. There IS no discrepancy. For a while I was puzzled because I was making the same mistake in my assumption ... I was wrongly assuming the energy applied to the short end of the lever was identical, regardless of whether the other arm was balanced by a 1MASS or another 2MASS, placed in the appropriate place. You said the 2MASS on the short arm would not be able to tell the difference - You said the operator would not be able to tell the difference - But I built it and I COULD tell the difference. I have GOOD news, also, on the Emilie du Chatelet, CLAY experiments ... After a YEAR of waiting for someone to be willing to explain or discuss possible reasons why my first crude attempts to reproduce that experiment, were unsatisfactory ... ie, I could only achieve 3 x displacement of the clay from four times the height / twice the velocity - instead of 4 x displacement ... ... Well seeing as no-one else had taken up the challenge, or even answered my questions, I took it upon myself to actually buy some proper lead balls AND instead of trying to measure the penetration depth with rulers etc, I simply used LIQUID measured from an ink refilling syringe, to accurately measure the volume of displaced clay ... and please note that the clay is now significantly harder than it was a year ago when I bought it and first showed you my experiments dropping copper BAR - end-on, into the clay ... I;ve researched about clay consistency, seeing as that was your concern, and so I am happy to try with a variety of clay consistencies. Anyway - the results were bob on. Perfick. 4 times the volume displaced at twice the velocity - in keeping with the kinetic energy formula you dispute. In all honesty I wasn't expecting any improvement in results so I didn't even bother to record me dropping the balls into the clay, so I will have to do it again and record the whole thing uninterrupted so there can be no accusations of trickery.

@stephenbrough8132

2 жыл бұрын

PS ... I've just realised (the next morning) that two days ago you REPEATED your old claim about it being impossible to tell the difference from one side of your fantasy, massless lever, whether it was being balanced on the other side by another 2MASS, equidistant from the fulcrum, or a 1MASS twice that distance away ... (you rant on about it angrily for five minutes from about 11.30 in your recent "update" video - in response to Ian G's comment about your fundamental mistake, your wrong assumption - which he explains in more eloquent language, more scientifically correct language than I was able to use when I pointed out the same thing in my previous comment a few hours ago) Thank you - THAT SAVES ME TIME wading through many hundreds of your extremely long, repetitive videos from just one year, just to find examples of you claiming this - if I didn't bother to find examples before showing you your claim is incorrect, you would probably deny you had ever said it, as usual, so you've saved me some effort by repeating it only two days ago. It was quite amusing to hear you seem so sure about something you (once again) have never even bothered to check. This seems to be at the heart of all your misunderstandings ... your fixation with the idea that you and you alone can just GUESS the answer to any physics problem and outsmart all the professors etc. It seems to be an ego trip more than a genuine interest in discovering how nature actually works. Anyway - that gives me the impetus to actually make the effort to record the evidence you claim "NO-ONE" can possibly show ... In truth, no-one can be BOTHERED wasting their time showing you except me - Because I'm almost as bad at math as you, I have to see things proven physically with hands-on experiments - and so I enjoy discovering the answers at the same time as you. The only difference is you refuse to change your conclusions after seeing the evidence - you generally blame the evidence whereas I generally blame myself when the evidence doesn't match what I expected. Anyway - so I will try to make this lever experiment available ASAP, possibly today but don;t hold your breath, I've only had 3 hours sleep so I will need match sticks under my eyelids.

@hermitoldguy6312

2 жыл бұрын

"At 4:50 you demonstrate that the same Force produces very different amounts energy." No, he doesn't. Energy = force x distance.

@mindlessmarbles9290

2 жыл бұрын

_"you demonstrate that the same Force produces very different amounts energy."_ This statement doesn't really make sense unless you state the distance over which the force was applied. _"Do you actually believe that the twice as massive blocks where unable to absorb one half of the force?"_ Both blocks had equal and opposite forces applied to them. It's not at all clear what you mean that one was not able to absorb half of the force. Both had the same force applied. _"That that force / energy just disappeared?"_ No one thinks that. _"1/2 vmv is not a rational definition of energy and these simple experiments prove it."_ First, no one experiment proves anything in an absolute sense. There is only evidence in favor or against something. In any case, you haven't been able to articulate why these experiments are in conflict with any other piece of known physics.

@DraftScience

2 жыл бұрын

@@mindlessmarbles9290 "Both blocks had equal and opposite forces applied to them. It's not at all clear what you mean that one was not able to absorb half of the force. Both had the same force applied." *He showed with the scales that the force is equal on both objects through the whole range of motion. The same total force is applied to both objects. Yet their final energy is not equal (by your theory)* No one thinks that. *Clearly you can't account for where one half the energy goes... The heavier mass has less energy even though it received the same Force.* First, no one experiment proves anything in an absolute sense. *That's just silly* There is only evidence in favor or against something. *A lever, and this wooden block experiment provides decisive evidence against the kinetic energy theory* In any case, you haven't been able to articulate why these experiments are in conflict with any other piece of known physics. *They break Newton's third law and energy conservation... Two well-established facts.*

Did you come out of retirement?

@YeanyScience

2 жыл бұрын

I came out to finish the 2nd half of the year for my old position when the person taking my place left unexpectedly, in two days I am back to being retired again

Use a better microphone plz