This channel (The Action Lab) is great, it sets an amazingly high standard for clarity of explanation, and for practical combination of experiments and theory, all while being appealing to a broad audience. Most educators would be extremely proud to produce work that's accurate to the standards of a university professor, while remaining appealing to middle-schoolers. I can't imagine what more you want from the content.
he called oxygen the fuel for the fire. the discovery of oxygen was an enormous milestone in the history of science, chemistry, and biology precisely because it's not the fuel for the fire. before that, people knew about fuel, they didn't know about oxygen.
also, he doesn't understand how a bass reflex speaker works. unlike what he said, the port actually decreases the efficiency of the speaker by letting the negative bass note sine waves cancel out the positive sine waves from the front of the speaker, but this is done to tone down the "boominess" of the speaker at its resonant frequency, thus making the speaker more "neutral" sounding, and it's achieved by having the dimensions of the box and the port finely tuned to work most "efficiently" at the resonant frequency.
but in any case, what he says about the "bulk" movement of air (he should probably call it net, i mean all air is bulk by nature) there is no way that the speaker pumping air in and out of the cavity could turn into net movement in one direction. (the smoke ring blower is slowly charged up in one direction, then released in something like an impulse function but loudspeakers don't have that nature) if what he is seeing with his fan-probe is correct, that should have impressed him more and distracted him into studying what exactly was going on (ex: the air coming out was directionally focused from the cone? and sucking back in was amorphous and somehow not detected by his device?) because it is looking for explanation.
tl;dr -- aside from the point about fuel, you mostly don't disagree with him. You have different definitions for the same terms he uses, and you draw your system in a different place than he draws his. Both of you make reasonable choices. A youtube video is not an academic paper, and cannot start by rigorously defining the system under discussion.
he called oxygen the fuel for the fire... it's not the fuel for the fire
I think you're correct here, from chemistry definitions oxygen is not fuel, because breaking its bond consumes energy rather than releasing it. However, I don't think the host is trying to give perfectly precise chemistry definitions here, he's trying to explain how fire burns, and calling oxygen 'fuel' makes it clear to his audience that oxygen is required for combustion. I think your objection here is similar to objecting that voters in the US elect electors rather than candidates -- it's correct, but not necessary if you're explaining the concept of democracy.
the port actually decreases the efficiency of the speaker by letting the negative bass note sine waves cancel out the positive sine waves from the front of the speaker, but this is done to tone down the "boominess" of the speaker at its resonant frequency, thus making the speaker more "neutral" sounding
I don't know much about bass reflex speakers, but I read the wikipedia page in decent depth, and it appears to me that you are wrong, or perhaps using a different definition than the field itself uses. From the wiki page: "This port enables the sound from the rear side of the diaphragm to increase the efficiency of the system at low frequencies as compared to a typical sealed- or closed-box loudspeaker or an infinite baffle mounting... Depending on the exact relationship between driver parameters, the enclosure volume (and filling if any), and the tube cross-section and length, the efficiency can be substantially improved over the performance of a similarly sized sealed-box enclosure." [0]. I bet I can see where your disagreement comes from though -- I think you're arguing that adding the reflex speaker cancels some of the power going through the main speaker, and therefore must result in decreased total_power_out/total_power_in (forgive me if I misunderstand). This is a sensible way to define efficiency, and I think you're correct that total_power_out is strictly decreased. However, there are also other sensible ways to define efficiency, eg, instead of total_power_out you might care about the perceptually-weakest frequency the speaker generates, to ensure the sound is "balanced" to a human ear. You might then define efficiency as num_spectral_bins*min_weighted_spectral_power_out/total_power_in. I have some experience optimizing perceived smoothness, and we used a metric very similar to this. Without fully knowing what you mean or what he means, I think you're disagreeing over terms, not correctness.
but in any case, what he says about the "bulk" movement of air (he should probably call it net, i mean all air is bulk by nature) there is no way that the speaker pumping air in and out of the cavity could turn into net movement in one direction... the air coming out was directionally focused from the cone? and sucking back in was amorphous and somehow not detected by his device?
I think you're agreeing with him here, his explanation matches yours. We can break a full period of oscillation into two sections: a high pressure section (the air molecules being pushed away from the speaker), and a low pressure section (air being pulled back). The high pressure section travels _coherently_ through the air cannon, mostly moving air molecules in a single direction (as you say, it is "directionally focused from the cone"). The low pressure segment pulls air back into the air cannon, but it is _not_ coherent (as you say, it is "amorphous"). During the low section, molecules can flow towards the air cannon from the side of the cannon; they do not have to come from directly in front of the air cannon. If you rewatch that section I think you'll see you're not disagreeing with him. To be fair, more drawings would help communicate it more clearly. You're correct that if you draw your observation box big enough, there can be no net movement from something wiggling back and forth, but I think he's drawing his observation box over the fire. If you look at that system (the air above the fire), you will see net movement.
Comments
I'll bet that high school girl's science was better than what's in that youtube (it doesn't set a very high bar)
This channel (The Action Lab) is great, it sets an amazingly high standard for clarity of explanation, and for practical combination of experiments and theory, all while being appealing to a broad audience. Most educators would be extremely proud to produce work that's accurate to the standards of a university professor, while remaining appealing to middle-schoolers. I can't imagine what more you want from the content.
he called oxygen the fuel for the fire. the discovery of oxygen was an enormous milestone in the history of science, chemistry, and biology precisely because it's not the fuel for the fire. before that, people knew about fuel, they didn't know about oxygen.
also, he doesn't understand how a bass reflex speaker works. unlike what he said, the port actually decreases the efficiency of the speaker by letting the negative bass note sine waves cancel out the positive sine waves from the front of the speaker, but this is done to tone down the "boominess" of the speaker at its resonant frequency, thus making the speaker more "neutral" sounding, and it's achieved by having the dimensions of the box and the port finely tuned to work most "efficiently" at the resonant frequency.
but in any case, what he says about the "bulk" movement of air (he should probably call it net, i mean all air is bulk by nature) there is no way that the speaker pumping air in and out of the cavity could turn into net movement in one direction. (the smoke ring blower is slowly charged up in one direction, then released in something like an impulse function but loudspeakers don't have that nature) if what he is seeing with his fan-probe is correct, that should have impressed him more and distracted him into studying what exactly was going on (ex: the air coming out was directionally focused from the cone? and sucking back in was amorphous and somehow not detected by his device?) because it is looking for explanation.
tl;dr -- aside from the point about fuel, you mostly don't disagree with him. You have different definitions for the same terms he uses, and you draw your system in a different place than he draws his. Both of you make reasonable choices. A youtube video is not an academic paper, and cannot start by rigorously defining the system under discussion.
I think you're correct here, from chemistry definitions oxygen is not fuel, because breaking its bond consumes energy rather than releasing it. However, I don't think the host is trying to give perfectly precise chemistry definitions here, he's trying to explain how fire burns, and calling oxygen 'fuel' makes it clear to his audience that oxygen is required for combustion. I think your objection here is similar to objecting that voters in the US elect electors rather than candidates -- it's correct, but not necessary if you're explaining the concept of democracy.
I don't know much about bass reflex speakers, but I read the wikipedia page in decent depth, and it appears to me that you are wrong, or perhaps using a different definition than the field itself uses. From the wiki page: "This port enables the sound from the rear side of the diaphragm to increase the efficiency of the system at low frequencies as compared to a typical sealed- or closed-box loudspeaker or an infinite baffle mounting... Depending on the exact relationship between driver parameters, the enclosure volume (and filling if any), and the tube cross-section and length, the efficiency can be substantially improved over the performance of a similarly sized sealed-box enclosure." [0]. I bet I can see where your disagreement comes from though -- I think you're arguing that adding the reflex speaker cancels some of the power going through the main speaker, and therefore must result in decreased total_power_out/total_power_in (forgive me if I misunderstand). This is a sensible way to define efficiency, and I think you're correct that total_power_out is strictly decreased. However, there are also other sensible ways to define efficiency, eg, instead of total_power_out you might care about the perceptually-weakest frequency the speaker generates, to ensure the sound is "balanced" to a human ear. You might then define efficiency as num_spectral_bins*min_weighted_spectral_power_out/total_power_in. I have some experience optimizing perceived smoothness, and we used a metric very similar to this. Without fully knowing what you mean or what he means, I think you're disagreeing over terms, not correctness.
I think you're agreeing with him here, his explanation matches yours. We can break a full period of oscillation into two sections: a high pressure section (the air molecules being pushed away from the speaker), and a low pressure section (air being pulled back). The high pressure section travels _coherently_ through the air cannon, mostly moving air molecules in a single direction (as you say, it is "directionally focused from the cone"). The low pressure segment pulls air back into the air cannon, but it is _not_ coherent (as you say, it is "amorphous"). During the low section, molecules can flow towards the air cannon from the side of the cannon; they do not have to come from directly in front of the air cannon. If you rewatch that section I think you'll see you're not disagreeing with him. To be fair, more drawings would help communicate it more clearly. You're correct that if you draw your observation box big enough, there can be no net movement from something wiggling back and forth, but I think he's drawing his observation box over the fire. If you look at that system (the air above the fire), you will see net movement.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_reflex
that comparison says more about you than about how high school girls science is