When Veritasium gets it Wrong! - Trial by EXPERIMENT!

  • Опубликовано: 21 окт 2014
  • Veritasiums explanation for the deflection of water bugged me.
    A week or so of experimenting later, I had a simple, reproducible experiment that demonstrated that their explanation was wrong.
    The concept is simple. According to Veritasium, positive ions come out in the water, while negative ones are withheld. This means that in an electrically isolated system, the first water out should be positive, while the reservoir at the top becomes increasingly negatively charged. However ultimately that water must come out too, and when it does, it should be strongly repelled by the charged object. In reality, that doesnt happen, indeed if anything its more strongly attracted, although this is probably due to the last water out moving more slowly. Either way its a pretty clear experiment for showing that the ions do not move back up into the tap as Veritasium suggests.
    Stunningly there is actually some quite recent stuff on this in the literature (last 10 yrs or so), although Im not so sure I believe any of it.
    Y'see showing something to be wrong is usually just the first stage in science.... you then gotta show you know whats going on by proposing a model that works.
    In the week or two of experimenting I did, I got enough clear results to show everything is wrong! I have no coherent explanation that merely explains the obtained results, let alone one that can be used to predict unknowns.
    FYI, the cones at the end are called Taylor cones and are the core of electrospray which got someone a Nobel Prize in chemistry!
    Kinda makes it even more weird that its so hard to come up with a fully coherent explanation of why a stream of water is deflected by a charged object.
    -Simple things don't always have simple explanations!
    Kelvin dropper has to be seen to be believed!
    ruclip.com/video/sArNxGnYhNU/
    Veritasiums video
    ruclip.com/video/jIMihpDmBpY/
    This video was support though Patreon.
    www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t
  • РазвлеченияРазвлечения
  • Длительность: 8:54
  • veritasium  thunderf00t  5 fun  fun  physics  explained  experiment  water  static  electricity  kelvin  dropper  chemistry  van  der  graaf  generator  electrical  deflection  bend  bending  wrong  right  amazing  science  bitches  it  works  interesting  cool  win  pwn  funny  fail  epic  lol  Derek Muller  derek  muller  dawkins  nature  natural  running  tap  comb  balloon  plastic  Math  Noob  Owned  Robot  Electronics  Technology  positive  negative  Space  Diy  Computer  

Комментарии: 1 642

  • The Eh Team
    The Eh Team 4 дня назад

    This looks like the Hall Effect. You have a current (actual electron current) flowing through a voltage difference (electric field). Your flow has an electric force forcing it towards the negatively charged cup.

  • TheSteelshooter
    TheSteelshooter 13 дней назад

    Hit both water streams with a strobe light. I would guess the glass tube is a connected stream, but the faucet is separate droplets.

  • BurnItWithFire
    BurnItWithFire Месяц назад

    A bit late. But how about using purified(deionized) water to test if the results are different?

  • Pit Gutzmann
    Pit Gutzmann Месяц назад

    +Thunderf00t If Veritasium's explanation was right, you should be able to measure a positive charge in the water that has dropped down. Catch it before it hits metal and measure it's charge!

  • JamesFrancesco
    JamesFrancesco Месяц назад

    wow, you commented on a video without mentioning feminism. good for you, psycho

  • Niall Tracey
    Niall Tracey 2 месяца назад

    There's a slight gap in the methodology here:
    When you move the charged membrane (balloon/cup) near to the droplets, you have already held it to the stream, which would give the opportunity for the water to gather charge as per Derek Muller, if that was possible.
    So now we've got an uncontrolled variable -- is the deflection of the droplets due to the pre-charging of the water, or is it simply the default behaviour of droplets in the presence of a weak negative static field?
    My initial hypothesis would be the latter, as the continued deflection of the stream does indeed appear to disprove Muller's theory.
    But we'd need to see the effect of the charged balloon on individual droplets that had never been subject to a static field beforehand.

  • surgeyX
    surgeyX 2 месяца назад

    So whatever happened with this? Did Veritasium ever respond?

    • nineball039
      nineball039 Месяц назад

      Yes he did. Sort the comments by Top Comments. Derek's reply is the top comment.

  • Tony Flounders
    Tony Flounders 3 месяца назад

    Hi Thunderfoot.
    You might want to look up a thing called exclusion zone (EZ) water. I saw this on a TED talk and it indicates that water at its surface rearranges its self into sheets of H3O2 which are slightly electrically charged.
    Hope this helps.

  • IndustrialDonut
    IndustrialDonut 3 месяца назад

    Can we try this with distilled deionized water?

  • Aco
    Aco 3 месяца назад

    The way that drop oscillates speaks volumes about your point - there's definitely something going on that the other models haven't directly recognized. Could it be possible to measure the charge of the water without affecting the system too greatly?

  • Zac packman
    Zac packman 3 месяца назад

    whilst veritasum may not get the science fully right they do simplfy alot of stuff for us normal ppls in a intresting and informative way. its not like you havent made mistakes b4 eather :) good work as allwase mate

  • Marconius
    Marconius 3 месяца назад

    The one thing I definitely want to see is how this behaves with distilled water, that has no ions in it.

    • nineball039
      nineball039 Месяц назад

      Water is self ionizing. See wikipedia entry "Self-ionization of water". Pure water is neutral which with the number of free hydrogen ions giving us the neutral pH of 7.

  • Connor Watson
    Connor Watson 3 месяца назад

    Have you tried it with DI water? If it has the same effect then it might be the case that the ions aren't what's causing the bend

    • nineball039
      nineball039 Месяц назад

      The whole point of Veritasium's video is to explain why *tap water* is attracted to a charged object.

    • Connor Watson
      Connor Watson 3 месяца назад

      Also try a non polar liquid

  • Mortos DerSoulStealer
    Mortos DerSoulStealer 4 месяца назад

    I don't care about the science of it, I'm just glad I can now convince my children I'm a Jedi.

  • Lankey Bastard
    Lankey Bastard 4 месяца назад

    I see through your evil plan. By making us all have to pee with your dripping water machine you plan to drive up the cost of water.
    You evil bastard.

  • Joshua Lansell-Kenny
    Joshua Lansell-Kenny 4 месяца назад

    My mate felt a strong attraction to Thunderf00t charges are definitely involved lol

  • Andre Artus
    Andre Artus 5 месяцев назад

    Has this been run using deionized or distilled water? It would be interesting to have two streams, one normal tap water ion concentrations and another deionized, running at the same flow rate and then comparing the deflection both upstream and downstream. High speed could prove illuminating. Of course for completeness the same should be done with a discharged balloon.

  • Arokace
    Arokace 5 месяцев назад

    I'm not a scientist so I could easily be wrong but could the ions be going to the metal with the sinks tap in Veritasium's video? Either way...why do this to him... There's so many other people who deserve your negative(well technically positive) feedback. Or were you just kind of at the bottom of the bin when you decided this? And ultimately, I think you said something about why scientist didn't say something at the time of his video, well that would probably be because of the majority(if not close to all) of his viewers are probably people who wouldn't know for sure if he is right or wrong.

  • Liber Philosophus
    Liber Philosophus 5 месяцев назад

    I think your model works better. Anions in an aqueous solution will typically be one of the lesser solutes, considering water itself and other cations mixed in. However, "charged" particle interactions are one of the weakest links in the molecular world. It would likewise then be unsurprising to see the interaction become nill at higher velocities. I think the repulsion at the end is explained by Newton's third law.

  • what else is on
    what else is on 6 месяцев назад

    That's not the only video in which Derek attempts to replace others' misconceptions with his own. That's why I got sick of watching his stuff. I'm just discovering your channel though and I can't fault your accuracy or logic at all so far. You can have my cancelled Veritasium subscription.

  • Silver Night
    Silver Night 6 месяцев назад

    Didn't he say that "some" of the water would go back up into the original container. Couldn't some of the water fly off the other way?

  • Phteve
    Phteve 6 месяцев назад

    He's on Bill Nye's show.
    Bill Nye's show is on Netflix.
    Netflix has 7 letter.
    _______ ---> N-O-T-R-E-A-L is also seven letters.
    Therefore, not a real scientist.
    TRUMP 2020

  • The Kaveman
    The Kaveman 6 месяцев назад

    More to be done on this

  • U.N. Owen
    U.N. Owen 6 месяцев назад +1

    +Thunderf00t: Again, I don't know WHO these people are, but, I'm pretty certain Veratasium, is pronounced 'VER+uh+TAY+ZEE+um, NOT 'VER+uh+TAYT+EE++um' (where are you getting that 2nd 't' from? There IS NONE)

  • Erlend Ellingsen
    Erlend Ellingsen 6 месяцев назад +1

    Uhm... Veritasium is actually correct. Do this with larger objects over larger amount of time, and touch the pipe... you will get a small electric shock. Obviously this does not happen if you have an plastic pipe.

    When I've been doing sports, I somehow often gets electrically charged (like the cup). When i first enter the shower its all fine and i can touch the metal piping, but after a min or so i get small but unpleasant electrical shock when I touch the piping.

  • Joost Ringoot
    Joost Ringoot 6 месяцев назад

    An explanation that is in my opinion consistent with both your experiments and the experiments of veritassium, is this:
    Water is an equilibrium of ions.
    The negative object attracts the positive ions and repulses the negative ions. Some negative ions escape via the drops at the bottom and some dispose their charge at the conductive metal tap of veritassiums experiment, some just stay at the tap.
    The result is a slightly positively charged waterbeam that is sufficiently charged to pull the water towards the negatively charged object.

  • pedzsan
    pedzsan 6 месяцев назад

    I like you method of presenting your experiments with a healthy dose of self doubt.

  • Artem Zhuravski
    Artem Zhuravski 7 месяцев назад

    Well he is kinda wrong not totaly

  • Ben Snash
    Ben Snash 7 месяцев назад

    Perhaps when veritasium said that the polar nature of water would only cause it to flip and not move because there would be equal attraction and repulsion is wrong, perhaps since the molecule's positive side is turned towards the cup it means as its close to the cup than the negative side the attraction force would be marginally greater than the repulsion force. Intuition tells me that it wouldn't produce enough of a difference to cause that much change in the flow but it's a thought

  • Crooks and Crafts
    Crooks and Crafts 7 месяцев назад

    +Thunderf00t If the stream of water is indeed neutral, then shouldn't it be attracted by either positive or negatively charged objects? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Veritasium's video show that one charge repelled the water, while the other attracted it? If so, then how could the stream be neutral?

  • Jelle Bootsma
    Jelle Bootsma 7 месяцев назад

    At least have the respect to pronounce his name correctly...

  • Auke Mebel
    Auke Mebel 7 месяцев назад

    Why don't you go away from all the stuff to do with Ion's and try it with de_Ionized water and see if it works with that.

  • Guy Stokes
    Guy Stokes 7 месяцев назад

    if you did kelvins experiment with a molten metal say, and let it cool before the spark gap quenches, should it not be creating a type of mono poled magnet if Kelvin is correct in what is going on? or am I wrong to think that would be the case?

  • Hiccup Zain
    Hiccup Zain 7 месяцев назад

    when I watched Veritasoum video I honestly wanted him to perform the same experiment hut with distilled water (because it has less to no ions dissolved) But he didn't
    So plz can you do a distilled water test, it will be pretty strong evidence

  • Clorox Bleach
    Clorox Bleach 7 месяцев назад

    That faucet is metal... Yours is some plastic, would that have anything to do with it?

  • Steven Baal
    Steven Baal 7 месяцев назад

    Another version would be to use distilled water which should not deflect at all, due to no ions if V was right. This would have been easy with the apparatus used.

  • Higloo
    Higloo 7 месяцев назад

    The video showed a cool experiment, why would we need to know how it would work or why it would work?With this principle we could make machines that could even be useful for us!

  • 猫我蜜糖
    猫我蜜糖 7 месяцев назад

    Vsauce and Veritasiums.. not that good most of the time. But they have a great image in a lot of people's eyes, just not mine.

  • casey obrien
    casey obrien 7 месяцев назад

    The mic on your camera is better than the one you are using for most of the vid

  • TiagoTiago
    TiagoTiago 7 месяцев назад

    How about testing the effects of high voltage DC fields on water to get a clearer effect?

  • Scott Williams
    Scott Williams 7 месяцев назад

    No veritasium was right, if you used deionised water then there would be no deflection

  • seasong
    seasong 7 месяцев назад

    So it works with destilled water?

  • Franco Buzzetti
    Franco Buzzetti 7 месяцев назад

    can you expand on this like you didnt with coulomb explosions? thank you for science!

  • Maximillion Thermidor
    Maximillion Thermidor 7 месяцев назад

    To be fair an engineering pleb like me would see no problem with this theory. Apply an electric feild and get an electric charge. From that feild we also get a perpendicular magnetic feild, which would attract the positively charged water. However given this doesn't hold up in reality I would be interested to see actual tests done. Perhaps use an inductor instead of a balloon to retry the experiment.
    However I prefer your methodology with the Kelvin dropper.

  • The Mad Hatter
    The Mad Hatter 7 месяцев назад

    I think I know why the water droplets tend to move away when they fall. Imagine if you have a pendulum, if you push it one way and let it go, the pendulum doesn't immidiately stop in the center, it keeps moving till it gradually stops in the center. Likewise, the water is kind of acting like a pendulum in that it doesn't​ flow in the center when you move the balloon away.

  • Fazal Fariz
    Fazal Fariz 7 месяцев назад

    So, does a magnet make the water stream bend?

  • DξLΤΔ χ
    DξLΤΔ χ 7 месяцев назад

    So the more overal positive charged water molecules are pulled or favored first leaving more overall negatively charged water molecs for the end?

  • Eugene Arabadzhi
    Eugene Arabadzhi 7 месяцев назад

    He just veritasiumed veritasium

  • Davide Riccardo Gabrielli
    Davide Riccardo Gabrielli 7 месяцев назад

    Thunderf00t try that in vacuum

  • John Doe
    John Doe 7 месяцев назад

    This system is such a great example of how you end up with non-linear effects when dealing with realistic systems, and how all the nice approximations physicists use break down.
    1.) Liquid water is a conductor, but it is not close to an 'ideal' or perfect conductor. As a result ions re-arrange themselves to maintain as low of a potential as they can possibly achieve. If there were an infinite amount of ions (or a very large number of positively and negatively charged ones), then the water would attempt to maintain a zero potential. Unlike a perfect conductor the ions in water are not smeared over the surface of the water, although they are still localized.
    2.) The water itself is a fluid, and is moving in response to gravity and the electromagnetic field itself. This is not at all what you deal with with ideal fixed conductors. This results in a two way non-linear coupling ; the electromagnetic field changes the shape of the waters surface and changes it's movement. The changes in the shape of the waters surface and it's movement result in changes in ionic concentrations, resulting in changes in the electromagnetic field. This makes it a difficult problem mathematically.
    3.) In addition, you have the fact that the surface charge on the balloon may rearrange itself in response to the electromagnetic field of the induced surface charge of the water. So there's that. That adds another layer of coupling here.

  • Brian Stevens
    Brian Stevens 7 месяцев назад

    this has probablt been worked out by now but the water moving thru a tube may be gaining charge just like an aluminium skin on a truck moving through air unles this effect is counted up and negated experiment is inconclusive

  • jonas duell
    jonas duell 7 месяцев назад

    If Veritasium was right, distilled water would not react to external charges...

  • oooBASTIooo
    oooBASTIooo 7 месяцев назад

    Wouldn't the natural way to check this is to simply use distilled water and see whether it gets attracted or not?

  • Mecca Miles
    Mecca Miles 7 месяцев назад

    Wouldn't a better falsification experiment consist of the use of deionized water? -Veritasium's claim is that it is not the polarized water bringing about the observed effect, but rather, the ions coming out of the tap; therefore, to prove his hypothesis wrong, simply use deionized water where the only variable is the water itself and, concordantly, the water molecule's electric-dipole.
    Also, it's worth mentioning that simple logic can falsify his claim. If the electric dipole is not the cause of the deflection of the stream of water, but rather, the dissolved ions in the stream coming out of the tap, then the ions will not affect the water in the presence of a charged object, such as the cup, because the errant tap-water ions only act as a sort-of electric middleman between the water and the charged cup.
    That said, great video. Thanks for sharing.

  • Tom Davidson
    Tom Davidson 7 месяцев назад

    For throughness the experiment should be repeated using (A) Conductivity Water, and (B) a non-ionic polar solvent such as ethanol.

  • Retro .Spekta
    Retro .Spekta 7 месяцев назад

    What if you had 2 girls holding that 1 cup?

  • Solder Joe
    Solder Joe 7 месяцев назад

    Revisit this now that you have the high speed camera. Might answer some questions. Isn't there a way of reading the charge on the outside of the tube as the water flows? Maybe a feather with a background gauge. Does the charge change on the drain when you introduce the balloon? That would tell you at least there is something different between drops and a stream and introducing the static charge.

  • Austito R
    Austito R 7 месяцев назад

    slanderous and i love it

  • Alwin Priven
    Alwin Priven 7 месяцев назад

    How about taking distilled water and testing if it's attracted to the balloon/cup?

  • DreadX10
    DreadX10 8 месяцев назад

    H2O, such a simple molecule, until you actually try to understand it's behaviour.

  • Ethan Labun
    Ethan Labun 8 месяцев назад +1

    Wow thunder foot
    Have you ever tried getting views by other means besides criticism and spreading gloom
    I feel what you do is pathetic just going around dissing people who are more successful than you
    Try making the world a better place
    E.g build something amazing like idk a hyperloop oh wait your too dumb so instead you say hate about people who know what their doing

  • Sentient Potato
    Sentient Potato 8 месяцев назад

    Thunderf00t, the most cynical scientist on YouTube. I love it.

  • rosselur
    rosselur 8 месяцев назад

    what in the fuck gnome kind of shotglass holds 25 ml of liquid?

  • Alexander Sannikov
    Alexander Sannikov 8 месяцев назад

    It is such a good feeling when you're first defying an effect that makes Kelvin water dropper work, my hands are just itching to write a comment about that and then you do actually talk about that as well and in the end you do prove that this effect can be shown when droplets form. My only complain is that in your veritassium video you said that ions move slowly in water: well, duh, electrons' directional movement in metals is pretty slow as well but because there's so many of them they still might form a considerable electrical current.

  • Dom Vasta
    Dom Vasta 8 месяцев назад

    Did we ever figure this one out?

  • Tigrou7777
    Tigrou7777 8 месяцев назад

    You spin me right round, baby
    Right round like a record, baby
    Right round round round...

  • Jonnki
    Jonnki 8 месяцев назад

    Veritatium?

  • gonnabeadoctorsoon2
    gonnabeadoctorsoon2 8 месяцев назад

    Needs less fake science or possibly someone with an actual science education. Issue #1: You are not using enough water to disprove this theory. #2: You are moving the balloons closer at the end of your "experiment". #3: Vertasium did not say ions, he says charge. You, in your very poor understanding of science, jumped to and made that conclusion. Again, please stop making bad science videos for your own ego. Your false information and poor scientific principle cause as much damage to science and people as anti vaxxers and flat earthers.

  • signalamplifier
    signalamplifier 8 месяцев назад

    much more convincing would be an experiment with the double distilled water.

  • Remus
    Remus 8 месяцев назад

    Next please do Vsauce.

  • Techo536
    Techo536 8 месяцев назад

    You're videos are well put together and make sense. Have you ever considered becoming less negative and, instead of only proving stuff doesn't work or is incorrect, coming up with solutions or alternative explanations? I read the description but this idea that just rebuffing an idea and being done with it is all pretty pseudoscience - very few studies just say something is incorrect and don't provide an alternative explanation. I think you should work on providing a more positive side to your channel - your negativity gets on my nerves because it's all your channel consists of!

  • Joseph A. Muniz
    Joseph A. Muniz 8 месяцев назад

    Lol. Tnunderf00t can be an ass at times. However, that's one of the reasons I enjoy this channel. I love Veritasium channel too. If ever I had to choose which I'd rather have a beer with, I'd likely choose to have a drink and conversation with Veritasium... Only because Thunderf00t would likely sit trying to find rebuttals to everything I'd say. lol. I have a great level of respect for both channels.

  • coolascats
    coolascats 8 месяцев назад

    I think there is an issue with relative reference frame here. 0.02. Both great channels.

  • Russia Did It
    Russia Did It 8 месяцев назад

    i think im tto stupid for this

  • Jesse Gardner
    Jesse Gardner 8 месяцев назад

    what the fuck?! it's this guy an idiot? thanks thunderf00t.

  • Tyson Romaniuk
    Tyson Romaniuk 8 месяцев назад

    i thought it was charge sperations. same reason a balloon sticks to a wall

  • Jakob vucelic-frick
    Jakob vucelic-frick 8 месяцев назад

    mind blowing stuff

  • Darieee
    Darieee 8 месяцев назад

    Sweet !

  • Grae Hall
    Grae Hall 8 месяцев назад

    Ahh, checking out Thunderf00t's channel, for actual science. It takes me back to the early days of youtube. God damn, such a fuckin' nostalgia hit right now. I hadn't checked up on this channel in quite some time. When it started focusing more on culture and ideology I just ... drifted off. But damn, proper trip down memory lane, jesus, this was one of the first youtube science channels to which I subscribed, and from which I learned, and learned so much and that's getting close to a decade ago. This was my introduction to youtube science education. Nostalgia FTW :)

  • doggonemess
    doggonemess 9 месяцев назад

    4:02 Great, now I have to pee.

  • Myke Prior
    Myke Prior 9 месяцев назад

    Thank you for disproving this infotainment twat.
    1x10^-7 moles/L of positive charges......yeah that won't deflect shit. It's dipoles, can do the same thing with acetone, but not gasoline.
    If that actually happened, you should be getting zapped by your sink every once and a while....this is super well known and not any mystery realm of science.

  • Wolf Edmunds
    Wolf Edmunds 9 месяцев назад

    Being wrong in science is better than being right.
    It's much better to spend more time and develop a better theory than hastily believing an incomplete one, which will no doubt come back to bite you in the ass much later.
    Thunderf00t might not be the right one either, so stop arguing about who's right and who's wrong. More papers needed.

  • JYelton
    JYelton 9 месяцев назад

    I appreciate the power of peer review, and am glad to see Derek (Veritasium) post a comment. However, the tone in the beginning of the video seems to be unnecessarily condescending.

  • Weslin Camden
    Weslin Camden 9 месяцев назад

    So does the polarity of the water molecule have no influence on the attraction then? Or is the polarity of water exactly why there is induced charge in the stream in the first place?

  • Beaujangles McJiggle
    Beaujangles McJiggle 10 месяцев назад

    PEER FUCKING REVIEW, BITCHES!!!!

  • Mr Mürk
    Mr Mürk 10 месяцев назад

    now try it with something like heptane

  • RoonyKingXL
    RoonyKingXL 10 месяцев назад +1

    Guys, explain to me, why you downvote this video please.
    He creates a experiment to disprove a scientific hypothesis. He's essentially doing science. So what's wrong?

  • Qeeet
    Qeeet 10 месяцев назад

    What music is at the end?

  • John Reed
    John Reed 10 месяцев назад

    Could you run this experiment again, but with a restricted flow rate so the stream becomes droplets closer to the glass tube. This would result in the water having a lower velocity when passing the balloon, and thus a longer time to experience the pull/push from the balloon, and thus a greater visual effect for demonstration purposes.

  • dudeskidaddy
    dudeskidaddy 10 месяцев назад

    Why not try with deionized water.

  • Frank l
    Frank l 10 месяцев назад

    I heard that pure water does not conduct electricity and it is often metallic or other minerals with in the water that conducts electricity. Could the speed and the motion of water traveling through be conducting a slight static charge?

  • xokelis00
    xokelis00 10 месяцев назад +6

    Seems like you should redo this experiment with your new 15000 fps camera. =)

  • Dan Simbadd
    Dan Simbadd 10 месяцев назад +1

    aw man I wanna be a scientist :(

  • 11RoAR11
    11RoAR11 10 месяцев назад +2

    Wouldn't be the first time Veritasium is wrong.

  • Kosmos Horology
    Kosmos Horology 10 месяцев назад

    I expect the experiment should behave very differently using the insulated setup Thunderfoot used - surely the fact that mains/household water supplies are connected to earth has a bearing on this? The water in the original earthed setup has an enormous pool of "neutral" charge behind it. The experimental setups are not equivalent, as I see it.

  • newton9837
    newton9837 10 месяцев назад

    a simple test would be to test the ph of the water droplets with an without the cup. it should be slightly acidic of the H+ ions are the cause.