How far can a Water Flosser move a Lego Car? - Engineered Bet #7

[@titaniumaf4097]

Damn, I guess you could say that water flosser fought tooth and nail to push the car

[@Chordulus]

Now that is beautiful

[@DittyBelle08]

🥁 Ba dop bop ching! 🥁 😂lmao!

[@Itsalladamnlie]

Now that's what I call a sticky situation 🍦

[@M1N1Girl007]

@@DittyBelle08 BA DOOM TIS

[@funkylilmaam1658]

i call for a complete redo!! the conditions in the second trial were different than the first and the first was misaligned. redo redo redo! :p

[@mewvern]

So rigged, he's just trying to push an under narrative

[@cherriberri8373]

Agreed! For now imo, if one had to be picked the second one is likely to be more accurate to the average result, but we should 1000% see a redo

[@42k-b8b]

I’d blame the car due to the fact that axle could not be aligned. The car might not be assembled to the point where it can go in a straight line because of a slight offset. I’d say we fix the car and try again

[@jwg0814]

​@user-pt5zk5wt5v trueee... I didnt think about that 🤔🤔

[@salim444]

I got it correct but I too want a redo, I forgot about the water on the floor

[@Ethan_Hsieh]

Now try it with a real car and a firehose.

[@OptimusPhillip]

I'm going to say under, because the water flosser does not create a constant stream of water, but rather a pulsating one. Thus, there are phases during the pushing stage where the car isn't being pushed at all, and is thus decelerating slightly.

[@cherriberri8373]

But to achieve the flow rate they measured it would have to be creating higher pressure at the start if each pusle, something you can also observe in the stream visually imo. This is also the design of the machine itself which can be looked up lol, so I know the pulse is (partly) for pressure. This would negate the effect of the pulse removing the stream for a fraction of a second, and actually accelerate the car faster which is important since the stream doesn't go as far as you'd wish Also, I think that first attempt was obviously meaningfully impacted by the stream missing. I think the second one is by far more accurate to how it'd perform on average at least

[@Ali365]

WE WILL HAVE OUR JUSTICE, just you wait.

[@NeinStein]

over people, unite!

[@jimmyneutron8702]

For real, we were straight up robbed.

[@Hello-And-Hi]

Exactly

[@Axtrove]

There was no friction when the flosser started, the car was just building boost.

[@EranB]

There was friction between the ground and the wheels, hence why the car didn't move

[@Axtrove]

@@EranB Ik, it was a car joke

[@mewvern]

I was scammed yall

[@adamnclown9085]

Lego axles have awful rolling resistance and water lubricates is my guess

[@thegamedoctor1457]

Under because thats a lot of assumptions. The tires are probably worse than actual road tires, the stream isnt constant, and wont be on the back the whole time.

[@kingpicklethe1st586]

I agree, if the resistance is based on wheels attached to a car it would have less resistance in theory when scaled down because of the bearings found in cars to make the wheels more efficient. Lego cars have no such bearings to my knowledge. However since the over would have hit in an ideal test more analysis is needed on my part.

[@WagaTouso]

You can't consider the first try as the official one, since you made a huge mistake of not aligning the car properly.

[@cherriberri8373]

That's what I'm saying! I get this isn't meant to be super precise and more just fun, but that was very obviously very meaningful. That's not just wrong but strange to choose the test you failed on

[@ScarySkele]

I guessed OVER and I feel robbed. If I was Under I would feel robbed because if we want to win, we want to win fair and square or so I would hope they’d have that sentiment.

[@bleuebloom]

@@ScarySkele me too man. it was rigged >=(

[@Lreclusa]

​​@@cherriberri8373that's the point of betting and over/under in general. Oddsmakers use all the data they have to guess what an average is, and then they pay out based on whether you were right and how likely your assessment would be to happen. The odds makers wouldn't make any money if things always went as they're supposed to. Using multiple rigorous tests is great for finding the truth in science, but when making bets, you're stuck with whatever result you get.

[@riverrooks7416]

Damn I just spent 5 minutes on a science fair project. Great video! This channel is such a gem

[@diasteroid]

1:20 Say that again

[@shellcase1436]

Well I can tell you why the second one went over after it was align properly. You just assumed a Inelastic collision. In reality that the water would transfer more force and bounce off the toy. I know for a fact that it won’t be inelastic because when I use a water pick it bounces everywhere and is partially why I don’t like using them. Bouncing of the toy transfer more force to the toy making it travel further.

[@Brayo9]

Your incompetence contributed most to this result.....😂...over was the correct bet....

[@ttkindboy]

Video starts at 0:01

[@ExpodingFurcorn]

really?

[@sshhacker]

this only works on long videos/streams lol

[@impostercrafty7425]

Thanks

[@bleuebloom]

creative original never before seen comment

[@bleuebloom]

@@aaakkk112 that's truth I guess it's just the way it is 😞

[@AlphaOfCrimson]

This is the most difficult one so far. First off, the flosser is not a constant stream which means the calculated force is significantly less than it should be. However, the loss variables are numberous and will all compound. Even with a doubled or tripled force potential, there is a good chance that it will be cancelled out by the losses. Still, if it keeps it's target then I believe it will still go further then expected and probably by a good amount. So, I'm taking the "over". Edit: That's what I get for assuming the stream would be lined up as well as possible. I knew that the stream losing its target would be the biggest deciding factor.

[@thebasiccharlie1324]

0:00 actual video start

[@cansagarri6749]

Would it have moved at all if the water didn’t pool at the wheels? Or is the constant continuous force alone enough to overcome the resistance?

[@grungygay]

Okay I want to say, I know that you might have been doing this for a while now so you might be used to doing this scientific method type videos - I don’t want this to come off like a microaggression - but I have to applaud you because each of these videos are like mini APA paper turned into almost all visual and that’s pretty awesome! Recently, I’ve written a couple APA papers - collegiate level - and it takes time to fit it all and make sure it sounds great and you do it really well!!

[@JoshMcDone]

One thing you may have forgotten to factor in was that based on wear each individual Lego pin could be either rougher or smoother meaning that with rotation of each wheel factored in, the end result could’ve been different

[@williamsanborn9195]

I’m thinking under because of the pulsating nature of the blasts from the water flosser. It’s not a constant stream like what some people believe.

[@AntsPablo]

"Make sure to show your work guys!" Bro: "And I took that personally"

[@enderyu]

I bet under since the losses seemed a bit too low not accounting the friction from the axle, which to me sounds like a much bigger factor than rolling or air resistance. That could also explain why the second try went much farther, with water acting as a lube greatly reducing the friction. I also agree with @cherriberri8373, having the water be released in pulses makes you really underestimate its true speed, which for the same amount of water results in less momentum. You can see @4:38 how much farther the water went than estimated. A final nitpick would be to consider F_stream = dot(m)*[V_stream-V_car], since the water slows down to around the speed of the car

[@enderyu]

I would consider rolling the car down a gentle slope to see at which angle the car maintains a constant speed without speeding up or slowing down, and from there estimate the losses.

[@andrewtapio7675]

I guess over, I bet that the pulse style pump is used intentionally in this style of product to impart more force than the average water stream velocity as calculated by volume over time and orifice diameter. Likely to help clean your teeth better, love the thought provoking content.

[@gio_ozz]

The amount of stress I get watching these videos is insane,

[@chefgeoffreyexcellence4254]

It shouldn't be officially [result] just because the first attempt had issues. It should be wherever the average, or top x percentile managed. I don't know a single engineer who would stop when the initial result was one way, when there was an obvious factor that skewed the result, in the current state of this video it feels like a trick question that isn't really answered fairly Still a fun video though, keep it up

[@DrPonk]

I had a feeling it was easily going over a meter. Something about the water falling just didn't feel right in the calculations, although I'm not nearly smart enough to say what, or if that's even a factor in why it went so far. That was just the thing that stuck out to me. Sucks about the "official" result, but I'm taking this as a win either way.

[@justchris_please]

the question on everyone's mind

[@Neoentrophy]

Its nice that you accounted for a bunch of variables, but there are so many unaccounted for, this effort is for naught. Nice video though

[@cherriberri8373]

The pulsing of the beam 100% acts like using bombs for thrust in space, i think thats a good part of what causes it to ACTUALLY be much longer than calculated. Cause no, i reject rhat you MUST use the first try. That was obviously flawed meaningfully enough

[@camolion7529]

I think the friction was underestimated but boy those pulses went far thus pushing the car so far in the second trial however the misalignment was obviously the most important factor and a fair one since the alignment was clearly shown in advance. haters gonna hate

[@shavranotheferanox7809]

Under, cause i think that has won more often than over, and because calculations almost always miss certain factors that subtract from the end

[@The_PhysicsTutor]

I think that the floss shooting water not as a single jet but in pulses could have impacted the motion in a way .

[@redstoneman9113]

I think you forgot to factor in air assistance

[@wazzzuuupkiwi]

Imo the static friction stat was likely irrepresentative, hence my Under. But does that get solved by the wet surface idk?

[@Finnthechatlmao]

Bro cheated

[@robkol2599]

I bet over, because these things are so damn powerful 0.67m just sounds unbelievably low

[@jecsah]

OMG, is that the same flow rate as a normal human?!

[@Amelithy]

I picked under, but I'm not gonna take that "win"

[@griffinhunter3206]

guessing over

[@griffinhunter3206]

rip

[@Drag0nmaster]

I thought under cuz floor be not flat perfect plane :3

[@Nottherealbegula4]

:3

[@Pr0toPoTaT0]

These are so cool!!!!!!

[@SuperCityscan]

My guess is, you didn't grew up with metrics therefore you use .xy meters instead of centi- or millimeters

[@Notruthallfeelings]

No way. Over definitely won.

[@rujef6]

Bro there is an ant on the car

[@rujef6]

Bro there is a ant on the car 2:12

[@OliverTopping-mx5sl]

Anyone who comments on this video is proven to be up past there bed time because he posted at 11:00

[@bot24032]

time zones: exist this guy:

[@meghan1sharma]

I lost the bet but technically i was right I went with over was its not a constant stream but a hammering effect which according to my intuition will generate more power than a constant stream (not a scientist don't quote me on that)

[@cherriberri8373]

You're correct, because the stream is actually higher pressure at the start, that's how the machine works. Look up "nuclear pulse propulsion" for a wiki about a rocket propulsion technology that actually flew that used directional explosives(high pressure gas) to get 13x the specific impulse the space shuttle did about two decades later. It was theorized it could make multiple orders of magnitude better specific impulse, but even as is it could make millions of tons of thrust, back in the late 50's! That's could lift a spacecraft weighing 8,000,000 tons, using 1958 materials.

[@Gic424_YT]

I’m 3/8 on this series…

[@itz_killer_queen]

Voting under bc of air resistance not taken into account: 😎

[@transrightsbaybee]

engineering is so cool cause you'll do all this science and math and then none of it matters cause you didn't have the right coefficient for the friction on the wheels and everything is ruined

[@cherriberri8373]

More importantly, didn't take into consideration that the machine creates high pressure in the stream at first that fades before stopping and continuing the pulse. This actually increased the force and thus accelerated the car faster in the space it had. Because let's be real, that first attempt was more than meaningfully effected. That test failed, and the second one was contaminated so really I'd like a redo but for now it's an uncertain yes to over, no matter what was missed, it did go over on the only test that was completed and not failed.

[@roboticdem0n]

Under Because of 🎉 Air resistance 🎉

[@seerum]

UNDER LETS FUCKING GOOO

[@alexalekos]

all engineers voted under

[@MAC.92118.Crownd-in-majesty]

Over

[@shellcase1436]

The over won because, You just assumed a Inelastic collision. In reality that the water would transfer more force and bounce off the toy.

[@brandogaudiuso6712]

Under

[@FeelnLikeIDoEveryDay]

Brush, floss, water pik every night.

[@sparkray2083]

The assumption of the stream hitting perpendicular is what made me choose over, since the force is multiplied by [1-cos(angle)] and the stream is probably bouncing behind the car, so the angle is greater than 90 degrees, the factor is [1 - (negative number)] therefore greater than 1. Part of me thought it might be lower since the stream is considered a projectile and the horizontal velocity would be lower, and the force needs to look at relative velocity like @enderyu mentioned. I think it should be over, though trial 2 might have had a slippier surface which would reduce friction.

[@harrydbz123]

RIGGED!!!!!!!

[@Fridge_Fiend]

How bad at Canon I'm just doing what comes naturally how bad it add candy I'm just too ma's naturally it's it's a principle in nature cause you'll be so long as I used to look a lot learn

[@ethann9199]

bs

[@KevinPasqal]

SCAM

[@danielrhouck]

Iʼll take the under; it seems like there are a lot more potential losses not accounted for than potential gains. Also, the tape for the finish line seems like it could actually be enough to noticeably cause a slowdown and perhaps some other form of marking should have been used.

[@DevinSymone]

Over