Thunderf00t - 2014-10-21
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! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArNxGnYhNU Veritasiums video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMihpDmBpY This video was support though Patreon. http://www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t
So that's why Thunderf00t has so much hair; he needs it to charge baloons.
Veritasium is an SJW. He's finally coming out on Bill Nye's show.
DankRight
i whouldn't say that :/
Thunderfoot is the human equivalent of a swiss army knife
DankRight whatsappen is sjees?
"two youtubers one cup"
hahahaha legendary! xD
at least it is not youtubers one sandbox
damn i almost lost it seeing this
I guess Veritasium's explanation - doesn't hold water.
...hehe
bravo
So does my bladder. Badum PISS
😄
ha - ha - ha - ha.
Scrutiny makes science stronger.
Indeed
This whole area of science must be shut down until women and minorities have equal representation! The results can only be verified if the experiment is done by an equal number of each oppressed subgroup, and the white patriarchy's false results are removed! ;-(
+EvilSearchEngine You try to say that the result of an experiment changes due to the raze and gender of who does it?
He is referring to another one of his videos where a SJW does make that claim. I would link, but you really shouldn't watch it; it is highly disturbing.
Amir Abudubai for social science, and if the subjects are aware...yeah it can. for hard science...only for liars.
I think this may explain why the last drops of urine dribble down my legs. And I thought is was just an old-age prostate issue.
He might be pregnant. I always se that as negative when i hear the phrase. PS: might be the stupidest/funniest thread ever.
LMAO, shave everywhere and test your hypothesis. 2 year old post but I''m just seeing and soooo funny.
Gribbo9999 if you give the tube a squeeze between the ball sack toward the tip to get the last few drops out.
Pseudo Nym a that's good advice and I have been doing that for a while now. Works pretty well and who cares if it looks like I have itchy balls at the urinal?
Just fucking massage your prostate every couple days you fucking pussy. Would you rather die from prostate cancer or stick a finger up your butt? It's literally your choice.
It is christ that compels the water. Christ compels you !
I laughed at that.
I love you.
@nontheistdavid I would've guessed Moses...
@Joe Blow
Or Joshua.
@nontheistdavid he Repels
@Thunderf00t I have done some similar experiments including with a van de graff generator as part of my degree. There was a lot of wierd shit going on, personally I think the polarization of water is a huge factor, NaCl concentration didn't seem to make much difference to how it responded to an E field (if anything it decreased the response). What I would recommend is to try and do a detailed experiment comparing the temperature of the water vs its response, polarization is temperature dependent, and I suspect that is why there was no response at all for ice.
Distilled water still has ions (water is amphoteric and there is always an equilibrium between H2O anH3O+ and OH-)
@soylentgreenb And transformer oil, air, etc. always has some ions, created by constant bombardment of cosmic background, also the daughters of environmental uranium etc. In other words, air is not an insulator, oil is not an insulator, deionized water is not an insulator, if by "insulator" you mean infinite resistance. Perfect insulators don't exist. (Therefore, do you think that insulators don't exist?) Testing: apply some kilovolts and measure the nanoamps. DDW is quite insulating, but not as good as dust-free air, or transformer oil.
Play around with kilovolts DC and some pools of DDW on extremely clean glass or acrylic surface. VERY WEIRD EFFECTS. Then add one dust-mote of table salt, and all the oddities go away.
you don't need a net charge to flow down the stream to have it be attracted to a charge. Dipoles are also attracted by a nonhomogeneous field. So I don't think your experiment disproves them ('cause I don't find your model convincing), but I agree their explanation isn't very convincing, either.
Super interesting stuff Thunderf00t
Nathan Brindley
De-ionized water. Not distilled water.
1:26 Lol, you gave yourself a thumbs up.
You mean you don't? It's just automatic on Reddit.
You mean you dont like what you have to say?
well 1) I never like my own comments because it appears false, and,
2) why are people assuming Phil is logged on as Thunderf00t. He probably is but where's the clear evidence?
Neo Nova Occam's Razor says you're just trolling. Find a simpler explanation than that.
Neo Nova Well, surprise surprise, Neo Nova posts a crappy reply then deletes all his posts. Occam's Razor - he ran out of things to say.
LOVE this video. Love that when we can take people to the moon and get spinal chords working again, we still don't know what is happening in something superficially simple like static electricity on falling water. Going to show it to my teenage kids to get them thinking. Good job TF.
Just another person screaming at the screen "do it with DI water!", signing in.
@Thunderf00t In addition to trying to get a reasonable setup with deionized water to work, I'd try this with butane too, except I don't have access to the apparatuses that would be helpful. Butane is non-polar and therefore hydrophobic, eliminating the variables associated with polarization and dissolved ions (with the exception of comparatively weak Van der Waals forces since it is a relatively short hydrocarbon chain). It would also eliminate the contribution of proton/hydroxide dissociation associated with acids and bases. The experiment would have to be done below 0 degrees Celsius since it boils around there, but as a liquid it has a very low viscosity, so flow shouldn't be an issue (as for other options like oils). Butane is also pretty easy to obtain.
It seems obvious that there shouldn't be any deflection, but who knows until we try it? Maybe there will be non-negligible electrostatic build-up due to flow near the walls of the container. Is there anything obvious that I'm missing? If not, maybe give it a shot (if you haven't already).
Cheers!
Yesss. 1. Do it with DI water. I bet it works the same as with tap water.
2. Do it with vegetable oil: a non-polar insulating fluid. I'm pretty sure it still attracts, but not nearly as much as water.
3. Must guarantee that the stream breaks up into droplets before touching any ?grounded? ?metal? water-catcher at the bottom. If a contiguous stream touches down, then any neg charge at the top will migrate to ground.
4. Use a metal funnel on the end of an insulating holder. Dribbling water near neg balloon causes metal funnel to charge positive. Hold an NE-2 neon pilot light by one wire and touch the metal funnel. If the funnel is charged, the bulb will blink as the funnel discharges. You can even detect polarity: NE-2 bulbs with applied HV DC will only flash the negative electrode inside the bulb, while the pos electrode stays dark.
5. Even better: connect NE-2 neon bulb between insulated metal funnel and ground. Hold balloon near dribbling water below funnel. The NE-2 will blink, blink, blink (quite dimly.) Perhaps add a capacitor in parallel with the NE-2, 33pF would slow down the blinking and make it brighter.
+tabularasa0606 ions can't have a pH. pH is a measurement of the concentration of H+ ions in a solution.
Clement Rowe or OH- ions in bases
Signing in to scream at the screen: "Do it with holy water blessed by the pope!"
This is such a great example of how healthy science should work. By constantly rejecting the false ideas and learn the better ones. I think the greatest mistake which a scientist can do is to form an emotional and personal bond with his/her ideas and then feel insulted when he's proven wrong. Veritasium did a great job and let the reality be the judge of what is true and what's not. Both of you gained a lot of respect from me (And I already had a lot of respect for you guys). So keep up the great work :)
You could have used distilled water...
@cooldes4593 yes, but it would explain the phenomenon, rather than "busting the myth"
@Tactical Ultimatum how? how does using non tap water, explain a phenomenon that occurs to tap water? we might as well experiment on a banana at that point.
@cooldes4593 Because you want to discover why it happens. the science behind it. As previously mentioned we're not trying to "bust a myth" here.
Tactical Ultimatum water actually dissociates in itself called self-ionization so there are always lots of h and oh ions in water
I would expect in distilled water the deflection would be *greater*.
The water would still spontaneously form ions, but the distilled water would have a much higher resistance to electrical flow than salty water. So once you separate the ions by applying your electrostatic field, they would be more inclined to stay separate instead of "shorting out" through a very conductive salty medium.
I want to see a scientific video response war between Thunderf00t and Veritasium. That would be far more interesting than any battle with creationism or feminism. It would be a battle of scientific thought.
The problem of scientists feminism or. Who ever fighting it out is there points of view are weak bible thumbing losers scientist's always prove that bibles are all wrong about the universe & almost erverything we believe is false so in the end we all go to oblivion same place we came from before we where born that where we end up so live for the now
"time to charge the cup"
*hear rustling of thunderf00t's mane lol
Very interesting, its good to see a video that isn't so very one sided when it comes to the sane and insane.
It is good to see you build upon something rather than just having to tear down somebody's baffling beliefs or ego, not that I don't also enjoy those videos.
Its because it wasn't a christian making the video
+Bill Freedman Well that isn't generalizing millions of people in a way that makes you look like an idiot.
True. But how many Christian videos make use of facts derived from empirically testable data to make their arguments? Normally the christian videos containing arguments make use of philosophy (which is absolutely fine) but ultimately fall short of using logically sound arguments (point me to one that doesn't)
Bill Freedman Watch "Smarter Every Day." He doesn't make videos about Christianity, but he's a christian who makes videos wherein he uses the scientific method.
it is obviously his noodly appendage
FOOLS ALL OF YOU, it is the pixies!!!
I don't want to sound mainstream, guys. But it was the abrahamic God.
@Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre
ok, ok you win, but are you talking about the muslim interpretation, the christian one, the jewish one, the slightly modified pagon one or which one?
@doombybbr The one who also created the pixies, eh.
@Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre
oh hell no, pixies are infernal being whoshould never be trusted!
Hey Thunderfoot, please repeat the same experiment with distilled water.
Distilled water still contains ions, water will always have some OH- and H+
Yes but you'd minimise the amounts of ions. There wouldn't be any dissolved salts or metal ions in the stream...
You know... I wonder how effective showing differing experiments on video like this back and forth between scientists would be at showing people what science really is and why it works. I think part of the issue with people 'believing' in science is the fact that they are always being told what the end result is instead of seeing how the conclusion was made and how it was checked and verified. I know this would be very difficult to do in many cases... but I think that instead of simply showing how "right" science is... showing how getting /to/ the right answer with science is effective.
I imagine it is a lot like being in higher end science classes where you need to prove or disprove something through an actually presented experiment. I do think the major flaw with an idea like this is how solidly most science already is... but a skilled teacher could present scenarios in a wrong but possible fashion and have those they are teaching work to show how it is incorrect.
why not address the initial claim made for this effect. i.e. that it is due to the polarity of water. How about repeating with hexane or some other strongly non polar liquid?
Listen Richie, this ain't Harry Potter
@Danny Dazzler what lol
"When Veritasium gets it Wrong! - Trial by EXPERIMENT!" -
The title of this video could have been more modest for a scientist since not all of it was wrong and you don't have a complete model either.
+PW Its a youtube video, not a scientific paper.
+THE_oldy So what? I don't think being sensationalist is a good thing in any context.
@PW Well its good for getting views. Worked on you no? You're being overly sensitive.
In the context of Youtube, i'd say its only wrong when your lying or over exaggerating, not just making it tempting to click on. A scientific paper or even a newspaper should be less inclined to do it to maintain a professional front.
Oh, nice one, TF! Be interesting to see Veritassium's response.
4:40
Kelvin dropper, you say? That's actually Veritasium's latest video. ;)
@***** No, he doesn't. Veritasium's latest video is Hunger Games themed and came out after Thunderf00t uploaded this video.
Well the video is made first but they prob made it at the same time cause if you really think about it derek couldnt have did the acting and edited the video one day after this video was made
@Carleton Young That's not what I'm implying.
I'm saying that Thunderf00t did a good job at knowing what Derek might have had in mind, and then a few days later Derek posts a video showing about the thing Thunderf00t guesed Derek was referring to.
I'm basically saying Thunderf00t made a good, educated guess and it was proven right.
The question is... Can Thunderf00t ever be wrong?
Brexit.
On science he's pretty on point
brexit hasn't happened yet, nobody knows how it's going to turn out.
i think the droplets must be spinning in a non random way that creates repulsion.... hmmm how to test.. perhaps further down the drops will be spinning randomly (both attracting or repelling) or will attract again?
not if you always believe him without question
Seems like you should redo this experiment with your new 15000 fps camera. =)
What's wrong with testing this with distilled water? That would disprove his ion theory so quickly...
yes it's simple but it's pretty well know (to the science community atleast) that it isn't the dipole nature of water that causes this affect because like veritasium said it just isn't strong enough
my guess is that that doesn't work because (as Razgrits sais) there are still Ions in destilled water. that is because even in destilled water, auto-dissociation still occurs. that means that H2O Molecules dissociate into OH- ad H+ Ions which is why in perfectly pure water, there is a concentration of H+ Ions of 10^-7 mol/l (the concentration of OH - Ions is the same) which is incidentally the reason that pH 7 is neutral (as the pH value is the negative decadic logarithm of the concentration of H+ Ions)
of course i don't disagree with you that in perfectly pure water the effect should be less noticable which is why the experiment might work
btw i don't know what deionized water is (of course the name speaks for itself but to the best of my knowledge auto-dissociation always occurs so that's why I'm not sure whether deionized water really has no Ions in it or only barely any ions, especially seeing as that the two of you disagree on whether it's the same as destilled water)
cheers
sasja de vries: Well, even if you remove all other ios, water still contains H30+ and OH- ions
You would still have H3O+ and OH- in extremely low quantities,
@Gonzalo Ayala Ibarre
Yes, you're right, that's exactly what the person "ATschTheCube" said before you.
Awesome. So both Veritasium and Thunderfoot's models apply depending on the balloon's placement relative to the length of the stream. Love the intricacies. Thank you Thunderfoot.
Or rather, SEEM to apply... But the fact that neither model predicts all the possible data correctly means that something more complex is going on.
@Patashu
Touche, Patashu, touche...
Gravity must have something to do with it. If this was done at the Space Station would the results be the same...?
@Ronny The results would be that everyone is gay.
Good for you. This is exactly the kind of thing Veritasium wants. Reproducible results that can be done by anyone in a lab, and critical thinking, is exactly what Derick (SP?) is promoting.
Dirk*
Daniel Gable
Darel from verstablium*
Reproducible, to me, means using the apparatus Veritassium used: a flow of water that is contiguous all the way back to a big pipe of water going past his residence.
Veritasium is never wrong. Check your privilege.
Stop oppressing me guys!
Hey if it's called People of Color, why are blacks included when black isn't a color?
You sexists are triggering my Twitter-related PTSD!
I got my PTSD from people asking me questions that made me feel uncomfortable. You better not question that, or else you're bullying, which is basically rape.
Neither of you did an experiment in which you use de-ionized water!
+r77xxl Honestly i thought that was the obvious course of action.
@***** hmm then one would expect that the concentration of ions has an effect on the amount of attraction/repulsion. Pure water at 25 Centigrade has a pH of 7, which means its ion concentration is 0.0000002 M. 1 M hydrochloric acid however, has an ion concentration of 2M, which is 7 orders of magnitude the concentration of ions in water. I wouldn't expect acid to be attracted 10 million times more than distilled water in the same experiment, but I haven't performed it.
It's so rare to have lighthearted intelligent conversations with people on youtube comments. Good luck on the exam! Cheers!
it is much more rare to see someone understand the equilibrium state of water.
two scientists one cup :)
sorry for that..its friday
The question here is what does the fact that the tap, which is metal, does to the whole experiment in the casual, pop, explanation Veritasium gives.
We are talking about a system that goes underground acting like a grounding wire.
Thunderf00t's experiment is done properly as it should be.
Well @aserta, if you want science qualifications, I happen to have a Bachelor of Science with Honours from the University of Melbourne, majoring in chemistry, plus I studied physics to second year. I don't usually pull rank because I think someone should be judged on the strength of their argument, not their credentials. But since you seem to think that only a qualified scientist can answer these questions, I've decided to point out that I am more qualified than either @Thunderf00t or @Veritasium with regard to this particular experiment, which requires both physics and chemistry to understand it.
So in my scientifically qualified opinion: yes you are totally wrong. An earthed tap does not constitute guesswork at all. An earthed points in an electrical system is commonly used as a baseline reference potential against which the voltage at any other point in the system can be measured. In the advanced physics experiments we conducted at university, there was usually a grounded point somewhere in the system
This information really isn't hard to find - have you heard of this really cool source called Wikipedia, and it's free!!!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(electricity)
On the question of bias, I call 'em how I see 'em, without fear or favour. Have a look at Veritasium's videos about the Kelvin dropper and the anti-gravity wheel and you'll see I've pointed out minor errors in his explanations too. In the past I've enjoyed @Thunderf00t's lampooning of creationist videos, and his recent critique of the Hendo Hoverboard is also right on the money. So I admire what both have done to redress people's misconceptions, but particularly @Veritasium's approach of testing ordinary people's mental models via prediction vs experiment.
In this case I clicked on this video's title "Veritasium gets it Wrong" expecting to see a legitimate correction to one of @Veritasium's videos. It didn't take me long to realise that +Thunderf00t's reasoning was grossly flawed, yet so many commenters seem to have zealously jumped on his band-wagon. I feel quite justified using my powers of argumentation to respond, and I have done so politely yet firmly, yet I don't think I've come anywhere close to redressing the balance.
But it's one thing to lampoon creationists; it's entirely another for one science communicator to turn upon another - if you do so, you'd better get your facts right, or else be ready to retract if you're proven wrong. And I make no apologies for calling out bad science, anywhere, anytime.
> so that the water coming out of the tap is always neutrally charged...
@Matt Coller Well, it's true that water coming out of a tap is at zero volts with respect to Earth. But it's not necessarily neutrally charged, since any e-fields can induce surface-charge on the Earth (and on the water.) If the water dribbles out and breaks up with e-fields present (with a charged balloon anywhere in the vicinity,) the droplets coming out of the grounded metal spigot won't be neutral.
@wbeaty Yes, you do have a point there that even an earthed tap that's within range of an electric field will attain an induced charge, and therefore not simply be neutral. I'm assuming that the tap (ie the end of the actual metal pipe) is so far from the cup that the electric field exerted is negligible, so the water has negligible induced charge when it leaves the tap. The key point (contrary to your suggestion above) is that charged droplets breaking off don't cause an opposite charge to build up on the tap because any charge is immediately conducted away to the earth. This is a perfectly valid experimental set-up, and simplifies the phenomenon under study as much as possible: ie. neutral water exiting an earthed tap, but attaining an induced charge when it comes into proximity to the charged cup.
Science is a reductionist discipline, so we try to make our experiments focus in on one isolated phenomenon at a time, and not confounded by additional factors. Earthing the tap is a perfectly valid way to do this, but @Thunderf00t's experiment requires adaptation of @Veritasium's explanation to a much more complicated system, and my qualified evaluation is that he does a very poor job of that.
To reiterate, the correct adaptation of @Veritasium's explanation to @Thunderf00t's two scenarios is as follows:
Basic physical principle: When a water stream comes into proximity with a charged cup, an opposite charge is induced in the water stream due to positive mobile charges being attracted towards the cup, and negative mobile charges being repelled.
@Thunderf00t's Scenario 2: The stream breaks up while there is a charge induced in it, resulting in positively charged drops, so a negative charge builds up on the water reservoir, causing a final repulsion.
@Thunderf00t's Scenario 1: If the stream remains unbroken until it's gone well past the cup and out of range of the field, then it reverts back to neutral charge. An induced charge only persists on part of an object while it is in range of an electric field, and it reverts to neutral if the object is moved out of range. Therefore the unbroken stream at the bottom is neutrally charged, so if it breaks up into drops at this point, those drops will be neutral, so no (significant) net charge will build up on the reservoir.
So how do the mobile charges behave to achieve this? This may be hard to picture, but the positive charges move more slowly through the section of the stream that's close to the cup, staying in the vicinity of the electric field for as long as possible, while the negative charges race past the like-charged cup to re-join the positive charges in equal proportions at the bottom of the stream, where it is out of range of the field.
This may not seem easy to understand, but it is the correct adaptation of @Veritasium's explanation to much more complex scenario of an unbroken-stream and a non-earthed reservoir. Unfortunately, when @Thunderf00t's attempts to adapt the explanation, he assumes that the cup is meant to act like a gate-keeper, preventing any negative charges going past at all. The fact is, there are loads of mobile charges moving in water, and the electric field only causes a slight rearrangement while the stream is in the vicinity of the cup, and they revert back to balanced charge when the stream is far enough out of range. It's only if the stream breaks up within range of the electric field that you end up with positively charged drops, and therefore build up a negative charge on the reservoir.
Q.E.D.
@Matt Coller I'm not sure about your idea that chemistry makes you more qualified, I don't see any chemical reactions here. But I would second your explanation, it sounds exactly right.
+Thunderf00t ...have you made, or have you thought of making some followup experiments and maybe even video(s) on this?
(If there are any already, it might be nice to add their links into the description...? I know it's hard to keep track of all these possible past references, many times even not worth trying...)
so what happens if you use deinoized water?
I love how 1. Thunderfoot, who has a reputation for going for the throat, was relatively polite. 2. VE and Thunderfoot and humble enough to have a discussion about what's really happening.
Pride gets the best of us sometimes, but it's good to see some people can get a handle on it and move forward.
Btw: What about some experiments with non polar liquids?
And THIS is why evolution is a fact, and you don't have "faith" in science. This is also why you DO have faith when you believe things that can't be demonstrated..
"let me charge up the balloon"
*rubbs balloon on balls*
it's amazing how sometimes ignorant we are about the simplest phenomena, even though reproducible at home. (in this sense it is similar to the alkali metals issue)
The "going back into the tap" part made me laugh.
4:02 Great, now I have to pee.
This is pretty cool, I like both Thunderf00t and Veritasium, so it's kind of cool to see Thunderf00t testing one of Veritasium's theories.
wouldnt distilled water be helpfull here as well
Isn't the jet of water being deflected due to the Coanda effect?
03:10 "Thunderf00t a reservoir and one cup". Next viral video. Make it happen, Internet!.
Thanks for the video.
"More than meets the eye" indeed. This is really some cool shit.
they lost me when drops behaved differently "because drops"
Hi there! Does someone listen to me?
the last experiment filmed at high speed gave me the following idea:
The droplet tip became more and more sharp.
Than for the "power of the sharp tips" the electical gradient becames so high that some IONS I think will Fly Away actacted from the ballon in form of charged vapor molecule.
The same should happen in some other way by leaking of charges to earth or by a double vapour molecule with separate ions one positive and one negative. One of them will be attrected and the other repelled by the ballon.
What do you think about it?
"Charging up my cup." - Thunderf00t 2014
If I remember correctly this was the first video of yours I watched and it made me discover your amazing channel !
I'm glad I found out about it :D
Veritasium - 2014-10-27
Great experiments and analysis! So we agree:
1. The attraction of a water stream to a charged object is not due to the polar nature of water.
2. In the region where the stream breaks up into droplets, the drops do have a net charge which leads to attraction (and in your case eventually repulsion due to your insulated setup).
Now the question is: do the charges separate even in a continuous stream leading to attraction? An experiment conducted where the stream was electrically shielded until it formed into droplets found no deflection even in strongly inhomogeneous fields. If the charge separation in a continuous stream causes attraction, it should also be possible to create charge separation in uncharged droplets leading to attraction but this does not seem to be the case. Check out the paper linked in the explanation video description for details.
Matt Coller - 2019-05-21
Au contraire, @Benoit Avril. Vertical movement of the ions is the only possible explanation of the observed repulsion in the final experiment. This in itself proves @Veritassium right.
What is incorrect in this video is @Thunderf00t’s assertion that a lack of observed repulsion in his continuous-stream experiment automatically implies a lack of any vertical movement of ions. This reveals a lack of imagination on the part of @Thunderf00t, not a bizarre dichotomy in the intrinsic behaviour of water between the two experiments.
Benoit Avril - 2019-05-21
@Matt Coller I would agree with that, but that wasn't my point, ions mobility is very, very small, they usually displace with a speed much smaller than the speed of the falling liquid. And with such a small E field I'm very surprised, but I didn't read the papers about. That said, even with that small motion, you might be able to slightly charge the water locally, repelling ions up, down and laterally. I bet you don't reppel 100% of negative ions, thus, lot of them are still there and must still interact, the field having a gradient.
What they could do is indeed increase the concentration of ions, for example with salt, or observe what happens with a negative charge, a positive charge...
I would like to come back about one of your claims. If Kelvin was wrong about that, that would 1) certainly not lead to the nobel prize, and 2) not change anything in the laws we know. It's just a complex system, and sometimes even the best are wrong about the expected results of complex systems. Thanks for the few words in French, see you.
Jonathan Berry - 2019-07-02
Aren't Veritasiums results, not showing the repulsion at the end because it was not electrically isolated, where Thunderf00t's was and did have the repulsion. He only confirmed veritasium, but thought it better clickbait to claim they are wrong.
Rob Wisdom - 2019-09-02
No, the charge should add up like adding iron or nickel to a magnet. The field strength would rise, and the individual unit would "disappear" in the calculation when it's added to the total..
Probably like dark matter.
Jonathan Berry - 2019-09-08
@Rob Wisdom You don't understand electrostatic induction, opposites attract.