A Derek Muller and UCLA Prof. Alexander Kusenko -- Downwind Physics Wager

AI Thread Summary
Derek Muller won a $10,000 wager against UCLA professor Alexander Kusenko regarding whether an unpowered car can travel faster than the wind when going downwind. Muller argued that the car could exceed wind speed, while Kusenko believed it only appeared to do so due to the wind's deceleration. The discussion highlights a broader understanding of wind forces and kinematics, suggesting that many people overlook the comprehensive analysis required to grasp this phenomenon fully. Despite the counterintuitive nature of the topic, it has been extensively debated and understood within certain circles for years. The conversation emphasizes the importance of thorough analysis in physics rather than relying on initial assumptions.
Jay_
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Derek Muller is the Veritasium YouTube channel host and he had a wager against UCLA professor Alexander Kusenko on whether a unpowered car going downwind can go faster than the wind.

Derek Muller said it can go faster than the wind, while Alexander Kusenko said it only seems that way because the wind slows down and the car continues to move on its own inertia.

I guess many of you must have been following this wager and the surprising thing is Derek Muller won this wager for $10,000.
https://www.iflscience.com/physics/youtuber-derek-muller-won-a-10000-physics-bet-against-professor/

This leads to my question:
Do we not really understand the kinematics of the wind forces and transport phenomenon fully enough to model this correctly and obtain the right understanding without Derek running an experiment? Or was the professor just not taking everything into consideration when he thought of his explanation here?


What wasn't considered when Alexander Kusenko was explaining that was explained?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's really not surprising to most long term members here, and it's been discussed extensively many, many times. There's a currently active thread that discusses this exact video and wager here (the video discussion is a couple pages in), but there are older discussions here, here, here, and I'm sure several other places that didn't show up in my 10 seconds of searching. As you can see, this was really a hot topic about a decade ago here, and has been pretty settled here ever since, but part of what makes it so intriguing to so many people is that it is very counterintuitive, which leads a lot of (even very qualified) people to confidently proclaim it must be impossible.

We definitely understand the behavior of propellers and kinematics well enough to easily analyze such a vehicle, and show that it is possible, but usually, people don't bother to fully analyze it in a correct and comprehensive way before just declaring it impossible, hence the (extended) discussions and wagers.
 
  • Informative
Likes nsaspook and Jay_
I guess the main thing is like you mentioned they don't bother to fully analyze it. I will look at the other links. An interesting conversation on this would be understanding the conservation of energy in this scenario.
 
Thanks @cjl for posting the links to all of the discussions (including the very good current one) -- you beat me to it. :smile:

@Jay_ please continue any discussion in the current thread. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes cjl

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B How Does Blackbird Leverage Wind Power to Move Faster Than the Wind?
2
Replies
69
Views
15K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top