Overthinking Dude
Overthinking Dude
  • 5
  • 506 058
The way YOUR TEACHER WON'T teach you the Simple Harmonic Motions
In this video, we'll go through the derivation of Simple Harmonic Motions (SHM), and learn about why they are commonplace in physics. We'll learn about how a force that is directly proportional and opposite to the displacement vector gives rise to a sinusoidal motion (SHM), and why the pendulum is not (but almost) an SHM. Also, the most important differential equation of the SHM that helps solve many physics problems will be given.
Переглядів: 44 800

Відео

Can You Solve This Easy Physics Olympiad Problem? | Running Hamster
Переглядів 21 тис.3 роки тому
A great problem from the book 200 Puzzling Physics Problems. This problem is about the physics of animal motion. We rarely think about the forces acting on animals since they have their own agenda, but they still have to follow the rules of physics. The problem is quite idealized. For example, running is not a uniform motion. I find modeling the hamster more like an RC car that can accelerate m...
A Simple Problem on the Hardest Physics Olympiad (IPhO)
Переглядів 432 тис.3 роки тому
In this video, we find the smallest angle of inclination that allows a common pencil to roll indefinitely given a small initial push. The Problem: www.ioc.ee/~kree/students/iphoTable/files/ipho/1998_Iceland_p1.pdf The Solution: www.ioc.ee/~kree/students/iphoTable/files/ipho/1998_Iceland_p1Sol.pdf
Centripetal Acceleration Derived | Rotational Motion Intro
Переглядів 3,3 тис.3 роки тому
In this video, I have derived the centripetal acceleration by considering the change of the velocity vector. The derivation also includes the basics of radians and serves as an intro to the rotational motion series, albeit assuming a general understanding of some background physics topics. If found this video useful, please like and subscribe!
Can Force be Mass times VELOCITY? Newton's 1st and 2nd Laws
Переглядів 6 тис.3 роки тому
In this video, Newton's 1st and 2nd laws are explained from the ground up using thought experiments. This is my first ever video, so I will be very happy if you support me! Have YOU also wondered why F=ma rather than F=mV? Let me know in the comments down below!

КОМЕНТАРІ

  • @FallenDevi.
    @FallenDevi. 5 днів тому

    I will pretend i understood

  • @Gameknight2169
    @Gameknight2169 15 днів тому

    This is exactly what a good teacher will tell you - the intricacies of _why_ the harmonic motions equations are that way. If your teacher sucks then I guess this video will be good but otherwise this video is just repeating the textbook.

  • @issamzreik
    @issamzreik 15 днів тому

    This channel should be called "The over simplifying dude"

  • @user-ko5be4se8i
    @user-ko5be4se8i 16 днів тому

    This question may be solved by concept of toppling, or may ne not, if any one know please reply😊😊

  • @AalapShah12297
    @AalapShah12297 23 дні тому

    I didn't watch the full video but found the problem quite intriguing after the point where he says it's not 30°. So I searched for 1998 physics olympiad and found the question paper. And I must say it's designed so nicely that the 5 sub-questions subtly nudge you towards the final solution. I haven't solved many physics problems for 5-7 years now, but I could solve it in a couple of hours because of all the sub-questions guiding me in the right direction. It felt very satisfying to solve it myself and I must say I wouldn't have been able to do it if the questions weren't framed so beautifully.

  • @manashejmadi
    @manashejmadi 25 днів тому

    HYDRA? feels like ww2 germany? and in turn could that mean some sort of enigma machine is involved?

  • @wendytaeyeonluna
    @wendytaeyeonluna Місяць тому

    "Simple" problem

  • @blue.jersey2482
    @blue.jersey2482 Місяць тому

    This is so awesome, your explanation is truly easy to grasp. Would love to see how you found out how much energy was lost each time.

  • @Anupamchess
    @Anupamchess Місяць тому

    I am a neet aspirant even tho I can understand by your simple explanation.... And I did completed the rotational motion chapter so I was connecting the chapter with the video.. Thank you❤

  • @mingt3529
    @mingt3529 Місяць тому

    其实没有那么复杂, 几何学定律:三角形的内角和是180度,N边形的内角和是360度, 铅笔:(360/6)/2=30度, 如果是立方体(360/4)/2=45度, 如果是等腰三角形,(180/3)/1=60度, 长条形的东西是(180/2)/1=90度,

  • @SAURYASHRESTHA-eg5ze
    @SAURYASHRESTHA-eg5ze Місяць тому

    Great Video! Does someone know what tool os being used for Animation?

  • @justaguy4311
    @justaguy4311 Місяць тому

    Forgot about the fact that the pencil can be approximated as a sphere

  • @AdolfSouLuvanstein
    @AdolfSouLuvanstein Місяць тому

    I thought Asia Physics Olympiad is harder

  • @sudarshan1793
    @sudarshan1793 Місяць тому

    i done it by concept of toppling and angle of repose

  • @amarsing982
    @amarsing982 Місяць тому

    Brother love from India I am very amazed to see this that's the reason why I love physics ❤ Thanks for making such a video

  • @kristofkovacs3358
    @kristofkovacs3358 Місяць тому

    Gravity is not a force

  • @SultonbekOrifjonov
    @SultonbekOrifjonov Місяць тому

    when you will upload next video I wait you

  • @SultonbekOrifjonov
    @SultonbekOrifjonov Місяць тому

    this content just make bombastic atmosphere for beginners like me

  • @CJ7Hawk
    @CJ7Hawk Місяць тому

    Shouldn't this simply be MGH to MVV/2? Potential to Kinetic Energy? Unless you're making allowance for friction, thermal losses, air resistance etc, then it's no different from a pendulum in space - What it gains in kinetic energy from falling is sufficient to raise it's CoG to the same height again. That being the case, the angle is anything > 0. The shape should be irrelevant, whether a square, hexagonal, an oval or any other shape. If the collision with the surface does not lose energy, then any angle will result in acceleration, not stability. If potential energy is lost and the only place for it to go is kinetic energy, I think you may have overthought this one and added formulaic components that are not relevant to the calculation. Without losses, a round pencil and a hexagonal pencil of the same mass and rotational distribution on average should start rolling at the same time, and reach the same speed at the same time, though of course you should get a pendulaic result where the shaped pencil is sometimes winning and sometimes losing... Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy means that the speed is the same in both the case of a round pencil and a hex pencil, and both will roll forever if there is any vector of thrust assuming no losses.

  • @SalaheerNazaar
    @SalaheerNazaar Місяць тому

    Please upload more videos! Subscribed to your channel from 3 devices already,mate! Consistency is key!!!

  • @markkennedy9767
    @markkennedy9767 Місяць тому

    Nice problem. Still trying to figure out where the 58% value comes from.

  • @namangoyal1297
    @namangoyal1297 Місяць тому

    I saw a similar question in SS Krotov, but in that question the wedge was at an inclination α with horizontal, and the hexagonal pencil made an angle φ from the plane of the incline. It asked the value of φ for which the pencil just stays in equilibrium. That question was interesting too

  • @ashishawasthi4350
    @ashishawasthi4350 Місяць тому

    Love it ❤thanx dear Do u use Manim for animation ?

  • @SHIVAMTIWARI-ho9cd
    @SHIVAMTIWARI-ho9cd 2 місяці тому

    Can anyone explain maths of that series, How is the value approaching 0.72 ?

  • @MohammadHaaris-pp6lm
    @MohammadHaaris-pp6lm 2 місяці тому

    Come back please

  • @xenvector
    @xenvector 2 місяці тому

    got the answer in under a minute too easy commercial engineer on top!

  • @MeLizzie-xx3cj
    @MeLizzie-xx3cj 2 місяці тому

    The link of the problem didn't work for is there another way to find it pls?

  • @saikumarkrithivasan136
    @saikumarkrithivasan136 2 місяці тому

    Video is fine, but physics teacher do tell these stuffs. Why posting some bullshit title,??

  • @Yes-re9ru
    @Yes-re9ru 2 місяці тому

    gr8 video

  • @mohammadinamullah9380
    @mohammadinamullah9380 2 місяці тому

    Provided the agular displacement should be less than 3 degrees.

  • @coolfreaks68
    @coolfreaks68 2 місяці тому

    Simple harmonic means, there are no higher harmonics.

  • @JohnMagar069
    @JohnMagar069 2 місяці тому

    insane presentation!!

  • @namehidden7456
    @namehidden7456 2 місяці тому

    Sir please make a video on the mathematical derivations concerned with the amount of energies lost. One of the best videos I've watched so far!

  • @jatinsharma4476
    @jatinsharma4476 2 місяці тому

    Quality is amazing, just a thing- don't relly on simulation observations.. try using the things a student can use whilst in an exam, use simulation to depict already proven things by calculating. For example - You said- for smaller angles like 5° you can see it stops.. well not without a simulation I can't see just like that.

  • @yamansancar7220
    @yamansancar7220 2 місяці тому

    Next time check tribological system then solve it (contact mechanics in tribology)

  • @rolandfebrian6711
    @rolandfebrian6711 2 місяці тому

    8:51 Can somebody explain, why the kinetic energy is lost by 58%?

  • @ananayakumar4421
    @ananayakumar4421 2 місяці тому

    why'd you stop making these? its honestly sooo helpful , please come back!

  • @TheWeen344
    @TheWeen344 2 місяці тому

    This was so well explained and well made, super underrated. It's very sad to see no more uploads.

  • @raghavpandya7908
    @raghavpandya7908 2 місяці тому

    As an indian High school student this was too easy to solve

  • @bscutajar
    @bscutajar 2 місяці тому

    At the end, instead if the Taylor series argument, the derivation can be done for a pendulum using the small angle sine approximation. So in a sense the small angle approximation is mathematically equivalent to dropping off the higher order terms.

  • @Kapomafioso
    @Kapomafioso 2 місяці тому

    Except the most handwavy assumption - the 58% lost in each bump - was totally glossed over. I don't even know how I'd approach figuring that out, I would probably give the answer in terms of some constants like the coefficient of restitution kind of analolgue and maybe make an estimate based on a few "what if" values.

  • @cem1062
    @cem1062 2 місяці тому

    You good?

  • @smogy001
    @smogy001 2 місяці тому

    We solved x"+sin(x)=0 for fun in our mechanics course

  • @JohnVKaravitis
    @JohnVKaravitis 2 місяці тому

    As long as the ball is not moving on the flat surface, it's neutral. But as it's moving because potential energy has been converted into kinetic and there is no friction or drag, then, by your definition, the "neutral" configuration is neutral only when it's not moving. ANY change in momentum, a.k.a. force, will make the object move away from it's original center of equilibrium.

  • @thinhuc9687
    @thinhuc9687 2 місяці тому

    tuyệt caf là vời

  • @richardrigling4906
    @richardrigling4906 2 місяці тому

    Nicely done!

  • @tHa1Rune
    @tHa1Rune 2 місяці тому

    "is this table?" Hmm 🧐🤔 im not sure...

  • @turtlep.9782
    @turtlep.9782 2 місяці тому

    Great video! One thing: if I am not mistaken, the plural of equilibrium is equilibria

  • @Miguel_Noether
    @Miguel_Noether 2 місяці тому

    Highschool teachers won't, college teachers will

  • @ozgurgungor2
    @ozgurgungor2 2 місяці тому

    It's time to make 5 more videos, Dude.. Stop Overthinking for a while and action