<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Mad Physics :: Ask Mad Physics</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2007:/ask//2</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2" title="Mad Physics :: Ask Mad Physics" />
    <updated>2007-06-12T12:27:50Z</updated>
    
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.2</generator>
 
<entry>
    <title>Synthesizers and the Doppler Effect</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/synthesizers_and_the_doppler_effect.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=28" title="Synthesizers and the Doppler Effect" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2006:/ask//2.28</id>
    
    <published>2006-09-29T21:33:20Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T12:27:50Z</updated>
    
    <summary>When people are asked to describe THX&apos;s trademark &quot;Deep Note,&quot; their initial response is usually either “loud” or “big.” However, the loudness is a bit of an illusion. Sound Designer Gary Rydstrom pointed out that “from a technical standpoint, &apos;Deep Note&apos; just feels loud because it has a spectrum of frequencies that grows from small to large.” With that in mind, today we’ll try to reproduce that “big sound” with some basic physics and some cool electronics....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        <![CDATA[<p>When people are asked to describe THX's trademark "Deep Note," their initial response is usually either “loud” or “big.” However, the loudness is a bit of an illusion. Sound Designer Gary Rydstrom pointed out that “from a technical standpoint, 'Deep Note' just feels loud because it has a spectrum of frequencies that grows from small to large.” With that in mind, today we’ll try to reproduce that “big sound” with some basic physics and some cool electronics.</p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p><span class=style28>Question: </span>How can you recreate THX’s “Deep Note” with a simple setup?</p>

<div align=center><a href="#intro">Introduction</a> | <a href="#phys">The Physics</a> | <a href="#sim">The Simple Solution</a> | <a href="#com">More Advanced</a></div>

<p><a name="intro" id="intro"></a><div class=style14>Introduction</div></p></p>

<p>Whether or not you know it, you’ve probably heard THX’s trademark sound “Deep Note.” If you need a refresher you can read a bit about the sound and listen to some samples at <a href="http://www.thx.com/trailers/" target="blank">THX’s website</a>, or just play the sample below:</p>

<p><embed src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/synth/Dolby%20THX.mov" width="200" height="40" autostart="false" /></p>

<p>When people are asked to describe the sound, their initial response is usually either “loud” or “big.” However, the loudness aspect is a bit of an illusion. Sound Designer Gary Rydstrom pointed out, “from a technical standpoint, 'Deep Note' just feels loud because it has a spectrum of frequencies that grows from small to large.” With that in mind, today we’ll try to reproduce that “big sound” with some basic physics and some cool electronics.</p>

<p><br />
<a name="phys" id="phys"></a><div class=style14>The Physics behind "Deep Note"</div></p></p>

<p>When we deal with sound in physics we’re dealing with waves. From that perspective it is easy to come up with a way to get a growing spectrum of frequencies. We start with one low frequency, and some how we need to accelerate it to produce a ramping effect of low to high frequency. That’s where the Doppler Effect comes into play.</p>

<p>A traditional example of the Doppler Effect would be a police car passing a stationary observer. As the police car is approaching the observer the siren sounds as if its frequency is increasing, and the opposite happens as the car passes the observer and continues away. To the person inside the car the frequency remains the same. So what’s the cause of this effect? In this scenario we are dealing with a moving sound source. Therefore, every time a new wave is emitted, its starting point is further up than the previous wave. So, in this pattern, every time a new wave is released it ‘pushes’ the wave ahead of it. Our observer hears this: as the car is approaching the waves are being pushed towards him (therefore the frequency is increasing), as it moves away, the waves are being pushed away from the observer (so the frequency decreases).</p>

<p>Using this principle we can make a growing sound by starting with a low frequency wave, and pushing it towards progressively higher frequencies. This is all good and fine on paper, but how are we physically going to make this happen?</p>

<p><br />
<a name="sim" id="sim"></a><div class=style14>A Basic Experiment</div></p></p>

<p>So after going through the physics of the process, I’ve designed a hypothetical model for an experiment. I’d like to generate one deep note, and bombard it with progressively higher frequencies. This will yield the same results as the observer listening to the approaching car, and quick increase in frequency. This will also make a large and loud sounding sound.</p>

<p>To make this effect happen physically, we need a system that can only produce one note at a time, a monophonic layout. This will let us do something that I like to call “stacking.” We generate one deep note, but then continue to add higher and higher notes. These notes are “blocked” by the first note, so they begin to push it.</p>

<p>The solution to this problem is rather archaic. We need a monophonic analog synthesizer! Today’s synthesizers are basically computers. They produce digital signal which can be modified with built in software and electronics. But back in the good old days, synthesizers were circuits complete with potentiometers, oscillators, and other components. These components would modify the sound physically—hence the difference between analog and digital!</p>

<p>So, now that we have this monophonic synth setup, we begin by playing our first deep note:</p>

<p><embed src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/synth/low.mov" width="200" height="40" autostart="false" /></p>

<p>Then we increase the frequency:</p>

<p><embed src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/synth/mid.mov" width="200" height="40" autostart="false" /></p>

<p>And reach our peak:</p>

<p><embed src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/synth/hi.mov" width="200" height="40" autostart="false" /></p>

<p>When all of this is put together this is the result:</p>

<p>While the sound produced here is not as complex and sexy and THX’s sound, it is comparable, and much simpler to reproduce. Music Thing has a <a href="http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/05/tiny-music-makers-pt-3-thx-sound.html" target="_blank">great background article</a> that highlight’s the birth of THX’s “Deep Note.” It turns out that it was produced on a supercomputer and took thousands of lines of code to create. The price must have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars when parts and labor are considered. This solution, however, was a quick and cheap physical trick that costs less that $200. Not bad for a first try!<br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Vibrating Gillette Razors</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/vibrating_gillette_razors_1.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=26" title="Vibrating Gillette Razors" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2006:/ask//2.26</id>
    
    <published>2006-04-03T03:29:55Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T12:19:39Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Recently, Gillette introduced a series of battery powered vibrating razors. Being a bit of a gadget man myself, I couldn&apos;t resist getting the M3Power, as well as its 5-bladed successor, the Fusion. Silly names aside, these razors actually did work, but how...and why? Since Joost prefers electric shavers to razors, I knew I would be alone on this one. After buying the Fusion, I didn&apos;t feel too bad smashing my M3. Here are the results....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Recently, Gillette introduced a series of battery powered vibrating razors. Being a bit of a gadget man myself, I couldn't resist getting the M3Power, as well as its 5-bladed successor, the Fusion. Silly names aside, these razors actually did work, but how...and why? Since Joost prefers electric shavers to razors, I knew I would be alone on this one. After buying the Fusion, I didn't feel too bad smashing my M3.  Here are the results.</p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p><span class=style28>Question: </span>I use Gillette's new vibrating razor. I can feel a difference after the shave, but I don't understand how they get the razor to vibrate, and how that vibration gets smoother results.<br />
<span class=style29>Answer: </span>My friend, this is a question that has plagued man for months. Where does the vibrating razor get its magic? The question involves physics, biology, and some alchemy.</p>

<p><br />
<div align=center><a href="#intro">Introduction</a> | <a href="#phys">The Physics</a> | <a href="#bio">The Biology</a></div></p>

<p><a name="intro" id="intro"></a><div class=style14>Introduction</div></p></p>

<p><img alt="shave.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/razor/shave.jpg" width="145" height="160" align="left" />During my tenure at Mad Physics I’ve risked life and limb in countless ways, and today I go under the knife for the sake of science. I certainly didn’t look very happy (left) in my precarious state—five razor sharp blades vibrating against my unshaven skin. I could have been cut to shreds! </p>

<p>As it turned out though, I walked away not only unscathed, but marvelously shaved. It appears that the vibrating razor really did provide a closer, smoother shave. The science was a mystery though. Gillette explains, “With the M3Power, micro-pulses are sent to the blades making it dramatically easier to shave more thoroughly with one easy power stroke.” Other than sounding ridiculous (power stroke!), the explanation really doesn't tell us much. Therefore, we are left to ask the question, “How are these ‘micro-pulses’ sent, and <I>how</I> do they make it dramatically easier?” Let’s break it down one piece at a time. First off we'll cover the physics, or the mechanics of what actually makes the razor vibrate. Then we'll get to why any of that does any good, or the physiological explanation. There you have it, physics and biology living in perfect harmony, who would have ever predicted this happening?</p>

<p><a name="phys" id="phys"></a><div class=style14>The Physics</div></p></p>

<p>The vibrator embedded in the M3Power and the Fusion is just like the vibrators in pagers, cell phones, and well, vibrators! The idea behind this oscillator is that of unbalanced weights. There is a 1.5V electric motor in the razor. When engaged, it spins; however, mounted on top of the motor is an unbalanced weight. As the weight swings to one side, some directional forces increase and the whole system shifts towards the weight. In this asymmetrical system, there is symmetry though. Since the motor spins rapidly, these shifts are only temporary because they are countered by other directional forces. This causes the whole system to be in a  state of constant oscillation—i.e. back and forth movement.</p>

<p>After tearing apart the razor, I found that when pressing the button, one closes the direct circuit between the AAA battery and the motor, and razor could vibrate. Below you can see the wreckage, and the incredibly small motor:</p>

<div align="center"><img alt="opened.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/razor/opened.jpg" width="605" height="225" align="middle" /></div>

<p><a name="bio" id="bio"></a><div class=style14>The Biology</div></p></p>

<p>The biological explanation revolves around the physiology of our hair follicles. Mammals have the ability to raise hairs; this razor depends on that ability. While humans cannot control their hair raising, it can be triggered. Attached to each and every follicle is a bundle of muscle fiber called the <I>arrector pili</I>, which as its name suggests, is responsible for raising hairs. This muscle is smooth muscle and not a skeletal muscle, so its functionality is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system. This means that we can only involuntarily flex this muscle—an example of this is goose bumps! In the case of the Gillette razor, the follicles on your face are reacting to the stimulus of vibration. The muscles contract, the hair stands perpendicular to your face, and the razor is able to shave better.</p>

<p>Below is a diagram with the <I>arrector pili</I> pointed out with an arrow:</p>

<div align="center"><img alt="hair.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/razor/hair.jpg" width="600" height="511" /></div>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Centripedal Motion and Tires</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/centripedal_motion_and_tires.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=25" title="Centripedal Motion and Tires" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2006:/ask//2.25</id>
    
    <published>2006-04-03T02:34:58Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T12:26:33Z</updated>
    
    <summary>You can&apos;t have a good car without good tires. Actually, you can, but the tires do help! Yes, when it comes to performance driving—or really, any kind of driving—it’s important to have proper tires. One fan asked us why tires are inflated. Well, inflation ensures not only an even footprint with the road, but also keeps the tire nice and snug against the rim. We set up a simulation of what happens when you don&apos;t do things right. Take a look...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        <![CDATA[<p>You can't have a good car without good tires. Actually, you can, but the tires do help! Yes, when it comes to performance driving—or really, any kind of driving—it’s important to have proper tires. One fan asked us why tires are inflated. Well, inflation ensures not only an even footprint with the road, but also keeps the tire nice and snug against the rim. We set up a simulation of what happens when you don't do things right. Take a look</p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p><span class=style28>Question: </span>How do tires stay on the wheel of a car?<br />
<span class=style29>Answer: </span>This has to with how the tire is designed and mounted, as well as with its pressure.</p>

<div align=center><a href="#intro">Introduction</a> | <a href="#exp">Experiment</a> | <a href="#vid">Videos</a> | <a href="#an">Analysis</a></div>
<a name="intro" id="intro"></a><div class=style14>Introduction</div></p>
Tire manufacturers have to consider many things when designing their products. Firstly, they must consider what their product is being used for: the conditions, requirements, and the expected longevity. This leads to many types of ties; however, almost all tire require air pressure. Air pressure helps hold the tire onto the wheel, and also ensures proper contact with the road. Wheels need proper contact to ensure even wear, solid grip, and good distribution of forces. However, considering all the forces acting on a wheel, what would happen if things were not designed properly?

<p><br />
<a name=exp id=exp></a><div class="style14">Experiment</div></p></p>

<p>We decided to mount a non-inflated tire to a wheel, and test its grip at high RPMs. For this experiment I mounted two 1.5V electric motors onto a plastic case. I used a potentiometer to regulate the voltage (and therefore the RPM).  Once this system was put together, I lifted the rig off the ground with a retort stand, and hooked it up to some batteries. This is what it looked like:</p>

<div align="center"><img alt="car.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/car/car.jpg" width="250" height="239" /> <img alt="test.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/car/test.jpg" width="318" height="239" /></div>

<p><br />
<a name=vid id=vid></a><div class="style14">Test Videos</div></p></p>

<p>Well, we gave it a try and this is what happened. If you can notice, at high RMPs the rubber actually separates from the rim. Try and have a look:</p>

<div align="center"><a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/car/wheel.mov" target="_blank"><img alt="movie.jpg" src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/images/car/movie.jpg" width="389" height="390" />
</a></div>

<p><br />
<a name=an id=an></a><div class="style14">Analysis and Conclusion</div></p></p>

<p>We know that the force acting on the tire was a centripetal force (one related to rotation). Therefore, we chose the appropriate equations and did some number crunching:</p>

<p>The wheel had a diameter of 6.35 centimeters. However, we were interested in its circumference (i.e. the distance the car travels per rotation). This came out to be roughly 20cm or 0.2 meters.</p>

<p>We then used a tachometer to find the maximum rotations per second (RPS) done by the motor. The motor, when over clocked (at 9V) did about 130RPS.</p>

<p>This means that the cars maximum speed was 0.2(130)=26ms<sup>-1</sup> and thus, by using F=(mv<sup>2</sup>)/r we can find the centripedal force acting on the tire.</p>

<p>Given that the tire’s mass is 0.05kg:</p>

<p>F=(26<sup>2</sup>*0.05)/6.35=5.32N</p>

<p>That means a force of just over 5 Newtons was pushing the tire off the wheel.</p>

<p><br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>How a CRT Display Works</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/how_a_crt_display_works.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=21" title="How a CRT Display Works" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2006:/ask/test//2.21</id>
    
    <published>2006-03-12T03:55:40Z</published>
    <updated>2006-03-12T05:50:14Z</updated>
    
    <summary>We went to the local thrift store (on half price Monday!) and bought ourselves a fully-functioning CRT Television for $3.75. Needless to say, it doesn&apos;t work anymore. Check out our senseless destruction in the name of science....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        <![CDATA[<p>We went to the local thrift store (on half price Monday!) and bought ourselves a fully-functioning CRT Television for $3.75. Needless to say, it doesn't work anymore. Check out our senseless destruction in the name of science. </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p><em>Unless you are dealing with newer flat-screens (i.e. LCD or plasma
            displays) your TV, computers, etc. is probably displaying images
            though a cathode ray tube. These screens work thanks to technology
            that is not unlike that used in a simple light bulb.</em></p>
        <p class="style14">What Does Cathode Mean in <em>Cathode</em> Ray Tube?</p>
        <p>Cathodes and anodes are simply terms used in electronics to define
          terminals: cathode being the negative and anode being the positive.
          NOTE WELL: For all of you chemistry geeks out there, beware of confusing
          nomenclature:</p>
        <p><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/tv/phil.jpg" alt="Dr. Phil!" width="210" height="140" align="left" />Although
          in chemistry a cation is a positively charged ion and an anion is a
          negatively charged ion, these prefixes are actually switched when talking
          about cathodes and anodes. </p>
        <p>Why? I don&rsquo;t know!</p>
        <p>Anyway, this is the general premise. So far we know that these tubes
          work similarly to light bulbs, and have electric poles. How do we find
          out how they work then?</p>
        <p>Well I went to a thrift store and bought myself a color TV (TV is
          seen <strong>left</strong> showing the best show ever) for $3.75 and
          I decided to smash it!</p>
        <p class="style14">The Wreckage:        </p>
        <p>Inside the TV there was a lot of circuitry, but one main component,
          the tube and the screen. A CRT<span class="style5"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/tv/diagram_small.jpg" width="150" height="150" align="right" /></span> monitor
          has a tube that sends out electrons similarly to a fluorescent light
          bulb. The diagram (<strong>right</strong>) shows the anode, cathode,
          conductive coating, and screen. So far the television has a method
          by which to beam and soak up electrons; however, if the TV only used
          this tube, the image would be one dot of light. The problem: steering.
          There are plenty of particles that can be shot out, but they must be
          guided to form properly on the screen. This is where we get our steering
          coils.</p>
        <p>Steering coils (<strong>below</strong>) are simple windings made out
          of copper wire. The coil acts as an electromagnet and steers electron
          beams using magnetic fields. One set of coils controls the vertical
          motion while another the horizontal. Changing voltage effects the position
          in the screen.</p>
        <p align="left"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/tv/coils.jpg" width="310" height="200" align="left" />When
          phosphor (the screen) is exposed to radiation, it emits light The radiation
          in this case is a beam of electrons. Any fluorescent color is really
          a phosphor&mdash;fluorescent colors absorb invisible ultraviolet light
          and emit visible light at a characteristic color.</p>
        <p>Phosphor coats the inside of the screen. When struck by the electron
          beam it makes the screen glow. In a black-and-white screen, there is
          one phosphor that glows white when struck. In a color screen, there
          are three phosphors arranged as dots or stripes that emit red, green
          and blue light. There are also three electron beams to illuminate the
          three different colors together. The red, green, and blue (RGB) lights
          are part of optical physics that show that those three basic colors
          make up all the others we see. This has been a brief introduction to
          the technology behind color televisions. There is more that can be
          studied, but why study when you can smash! Click on the link below
          to see a slide show of the destruction, and see how many parts you
          can identify...</p>

<p class="style14">Slideshow</p>

<p><a href="http://madphysics.com/photos/#id=TV&num=2">Click here to see the photos >></a></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Black Powder</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/black_powder.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=15" title="Black Powder" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2006:/ask/test//2.15</id>
    
    <published>2005-10-17T22:45:53Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T12:29:57Z</updated>
    
    <summary>We had a spare canister of black powder in our lab (don’t ask), which we found to be the perfect opportunity to blow some stuff up. The camera suffered some burn marks, but the experiment still made for some good video clips....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        We had a spare canister of black powder in our lab (don’t ask), which we found to be the perfect opportunity to blow some stuff up. The camera suffered some burn marks, but the experiment still made for some good video clips.
        <![CDATA[ <p><span class="style28">Question:</span> In the fireworks post you talked
          a bit about black powder, but I am not sure what it would behave like.
          You mentioned that it expands, but can also have a visual effect; do
          you have any video of this?<br />
          <br />
        <span class="style29">Answer:</span> Of course we do!</p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#history">History Lesson</a> | <a href="#science">Science
        Lesson</a> | <a href="#videos">Videos</a></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="history" id="history"></a></span></span>History
        Lesson</p>
        <p> <img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/powder/powder.jpg" width="136" height="102" align="left" />Black
          Powder (left) was first made in China during the Tang dynasty (~900
          CE), and like everything else it was made by accident. There are some
          early references to the concoction, but it wasn&rsquo;t until the eleventh
          century that it got its first real use. People used black powder for
          weaponry (often launched by catapults or out of bamboo shoots), and
        sometimes it was mixed with poisons like arsenic.</p>
        <p>Gunpowder was later adapted for use in cannons and became widespread
          in Europe. As mentioned in the fireworks post, black powder has peace
          time uses such as the propellant for large fireworks displays. Furthermore,
          since the invention of more potent mixtures gunpowder has almost been
          completely phased out for warfare.</p>
        <p align="center"><span class="style24"><span class="style26"><a href="#top">return
                to top</a></span><br />
        </span></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="science" id="science"></a></span></span>Science
          Lesson<span class="style24"></span></p>
        <p>Black powder has three main ingredients: sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter
        (potassium nitrate) and the general equation for its combustion is:</p>
        <p>2(KNO3) + S + 3C &rarr; K2S + N2 + 3(CO2)</p>
        <p>The results of this combustion are mostly solid (that would be the
          grainy burnt stuff you find). The products are 55.91% solid, 42.98
          gaseous, and 1.11% water.</p>
        <p>The mixture used today by most pyrotechnicians is 75% potassium nitrate,
          15% softwood charcoal and 10% sulfur.</p>
        <p align="center" class="style26"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <div align="center">
          <p align="left"><span class="style26"><a name="videos" id="videos"></a></span><span class="style30">Videos</span></p>
          <p align="left">We placed the black powder on the ground for this experiment
            and used gasoline as the fuse. It worked out well. Note however,
            we don't recommend doing this at home, but if you do remember this:</p>
          <p align="left">When you light black powder there is a slight delay
            (it needs to reach the temperature at which it combusts); therefore,
            if it doesn't go off immediately, be patient!</p>
          <p align="left">The videos below are 7 megabytes and 5 megabytes respectively
            and are worth the wait:</p>
          
          <div align="center"><a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/powder/1.mov"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/powder/vid1.jpg" width="300" height="303" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/powder/2.mov"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/powder/vid2.jpg" width="300" height="303" border="0" /></a></div>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Alka-Seltzer Rockets</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/alkaseltzer_rockets.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=14" title="Alka-Seltzer Rockets" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.14</id>
    
    <published>2005-10-16T22:39:46Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:10:36Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Alka-Seltzer is great for when that meal isn’t quite sitting right. It turns out that it&apos;s also great for when you&apos;re bored. While it’s not as impressive as the big bangs, this makes a great demo for kids and adults alike....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        Alka-Seltzer is great for when that meal isn’t quite sitting right. It turns out that it&apos;s also great for when you&apos;re bored. While it’s not as impressive as the big bangs, this makes a great demo for kids and adults alike.
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="style28">Question:</span> I am trying to demonstrate
          the effects of expansion and pressure to a group of younger students
          and I&rsquo;d rather stay away from doing anything too dangerous. Is
          there a good (and inexpensive) experiment I can do for them or have
          them try?<br />
          <br />
        <span class="style29">Answer:</span> I did this experiment for a group
        of 5-8 year olds in Australia and they loved it. It&rsquo;s very simple,
        inexpensive, but still packs a decent pop.</p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#prin">Principles</a> | <a href="#as">Alka-Seltzer</a> | <a href="#videos">Demonstration</a></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="prin" id="prin"></a></span></span>Principles</p>
        <p>The main concept here is pressure. Pressure refers to the magnitude
          of the normal force over a certain area. This means that even if the
          same force is applied to two different objects, the resulting pressures
        will most likely be different.</p>
        <p>Take for example a nail. This is am everyday item that one uses around
          the house. It requires little force to drive it through drywall; however,
          consider a different situation. Imagine punching a wall! You could
          apply just as much <em>force</em> onto the wall as you had with the
          hammer, but I doubt your first punctured the wall. Why is this?</p>
        <p>Well although the amount of force (F) remained constant the surface
          areas that made contact with the wall (the nail and the hand, respectively)
          were <strong>not</strong> equal. Since your hand has a bigger surface
          area than the tip of a nail the force was (roughly) evenly distributed,
          and thus the amount of force per unit area (A) was much lower than
          the amount of force per unit area on a nail. So, the best mental picture
          to have for this situation is to consider that a smaller surface area
          will be able to concentrate energy more efficiently than a bigger one.</p>
        <p>Therefore, from this one could deduce the equation for pressure (P):</p>
        <p class="style31">P=F/A</p>
        <p align="center"><span class="style24"><span class="style26"><a href="#top">return
                to top</a></span><br />
        </span></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="as" id="as"></a></span></span>Alka-Seltzer<span class="style24"></span></p>
        <p><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/seltzer/materials.jpg" width="152" height="202" align="left" />This lab demonstrates the principles above by launching a small film
          canister through the expansion of gasses and thus by creating pressure.
          It should be noted that although the materials involved in this lab
          are rather trivial, you should be careful what type of film canister
          you use. The ubiquitous black and grey cases found in the United States
          are prone to having weak lids and thus generally let the pressure escape
          with no bang! The translucent canisters are preferable. Since we had
        none handy we bought a similar container from the container store.</p>
        <p>For our propellant we used Alka-Seltzer. Alka-Seltzer is a water-soluble
          tablet owned by the Bayer Corporation. It is used to treat headaches
          and indigestion. It is made up of aspirin and baking powder, and since
          baking powder fizzes in water, we can trap the gases in a container
          and use the stored energy to launch the film canister. To do this experiment
          one should fill a canister halfway with water and then drop a tablet
          inside. The cap should be immediately replaced and the bottle should
          be flipped to rest on its lid. Once the pressure increases enough the
          body will pop off leaving only the lid on the ground.</p>
        <p>This experiment is both messy and slightly dangerous (don&rsquo;t
          poke an eye out) so take care.</p>
        <p><a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/seltzer/set.mov">If you want a visual guide to how this experiment is set up click
          here for a quick video.</a></p>
        <p align="center" class="style26"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <div align="center">
          <p align="left"><span class="style26"><a name="videos" id="videos"></a></span><span class="style30">Demonstration</span></p>
          <p align="left">Take a look at the videos: <a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/seltzer/1.mov">Video 1
              (far away)</a>, and
            <a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/seltzer/2.mov">Video 2 (closer)</a>.</p>
          <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/seltzer/vid.jpg" width="320" height="240" /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Inside Hydroelectric Dams</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/inside_hydroelectric_dams.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=16" title="Inside Hydroelectric Dams" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.16</id>
    
    <published>2005-08-28T22:51:57Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:13:41Z</updated>
    
    <summary>After receiving a question about hydroelectric power, the Mad Physicists actually canoed into a Dam to take pictures and data. The dam is closed off to the public, so the mad men went on a 8 mile adventure....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        After receiving a question about hydroelectric power, the Mad Physicists actually canoed into a Dam to take pictures and data. The dam is closed off to the public, so the mad men went on a 8 mile adventure.
        <![CDATA[ <p><span class="style28">Question:</span> How do hydroelectric dams work?<br />
        <span class="style29">Answer:</span> Follow us!</p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#about">About </a> | <a href="#get">Getting
            There</a> | <a href="#how">How it Works</a> |
          <a href="#videos">Pictures</a></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="about" id="about"></a></span></span>About
        the Dam</p>
        <p> Just outside of Atlanta, Georgia there is a small hydroelectric dam
          along the Chattahoochee River. The dam is fenced in a Georgia Power
          complex and only authorized personnel are allowed inside, but Joost
          and I found a way, canoeing! Georgia Power created the Morgan Falls
          Dam in 1904 to generate power for Atlanta&rsquo;s streetcars. Today
          it produces over 16 megawatts and can power nearly 5000 homes. The
          dam (seen in the satellite image below) is 314m (1031 ft) long and
        17m (56 ft) tall. For comparison, this dam is 1000 times smaller (in
          terms of power generation) than Canada's La Grande Rivi&egrave;re Dam (the
          world's largest as of 2005).</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/satellite.jpg" width="700" height="222" /></p>
        <p align="center"><span class="style24"><span class="style26"><a href="#top">return
                to top</a></span><br />
        </span></p>
        <p class="style27"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="get" id="get"></a></span></span>Getting
          There<span class="style24"></span></p>
        <p>Joost and I set out (rather late in the day). We started at Bull Sluice
          Lake&mdash;just north of the dam&mdash;and went 8 miles downstream
          until we got to his house. The trip was just over 3 hours long (with
          many, many stops) and when we got out of the water it was pitch black
          and very foggy. The trip wasn&rsquo;t the safest thing we&rsquo;ve
          ever done, but <a href="http://www.madphysics.com/exp/dry_ice/">by
          comparison</a> it wasn&rsquo;t too bad. We had some
        rather dangerous stops though; the first was for us to climb a cliff:</p>
        <p align="center"> <img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/cliff1.jpg" width="250" height="188" />&nbsp;  <img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/cliff2.jpg" width="250" height="188" /></p>
        <p>And of course another was by the water intake of the hydroelectric
          dam:</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/intake.jpg" width="459" height="341" /></p>
        <p>The ride was rather scenic though:</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/pretty.jpg" width="400" height="300" /></p>
        <p align="center" class="style26"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <p align="left" class="style27"><span class="style26"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="con" id="con"></a></span></span></span>How
        it Works </p>
        <p>Hydroelectric energy is a very smart alternative to traditional sources
          of energy as it is renewable and does not produce pollution. 20% of
          the world&rsquo;s power comes from hydroelectricity and many countries
          such as Iceland and Australia are heavily dependant and hydroelectricity.
          Hydropower comes from any type of water movement (tidal, downhill flow,
          falling, etc.). The kinetic energy of water is harnessed to drive generators,
          which produce electrical energy. The basic premise is described in
        the diagram below (courtesy TVA):</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/Hydroelectric_dam.gif" width="574" height="430" /></p>
        <p align="center" class="style27">&nbsp;</p>
        <div align="center"><p><span class="style26"><a href="#top">return to top</a></span></p>
          <p align="left"><span class="style26"><a name="videos" id="videos"></a></span><span class="style30">Pictures
            of the Dam</span></p>
          <p align="left">Two of the seven turbines (compare to the size
            of the man):</p>
          <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/turbines.jpg" width="400" height="300" /></p>
          <p align="left">The dam &amp; power grid:</p>
          <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/dam2.jpg" width="300" height="225" />&nbsp;<img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/grid.jpg" width="300" height="225" /></p>
          <p align="left">The dam:</p>
          <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/dam/dam.jpg" width="500" height="375" /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>The Chemistry of Cookie Dough</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/the_chemistry_of_cookie_dough_1.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=17" title="The Chemistry of Cookie Dough" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.17</id>
    
    <published>2005-06-06T23:00:40Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:15:27Z</updated>
    
    <summary>We bought some tasty dough and covered it with silver nitrate! You may call it a waste; we call it science. This lab demonstrates how you can find the salt content in cookies by comparing it to the concentration of Cl (as found with a silver nitrate test)....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        We bought some tasty dough and covered it with silver nitrate! You may call it a waste; we call it science. This lab demonstrates how you can find the salt content in cookies by comparing it to the concentration of Cl (as found with a silver nitrate test).
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="style20">Question: </span>I am studying different types
        of food, what investigations can I do with cookie dough?</p>
        <p align="left" class="style23"><strong>Answer:</strong> <span class="style25">This
            question reminds me of Rob Cockerham&rsquo;s &ldquo;<a href="http://cockeyed.com/inside/howmuchinside.html" target="_blank">How
            Much is Inside</a>?&rdquo; investigations.
There are various silly things you could calculate with cookie dough, but why
not stick to science. </span></p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#intro">Introduction</a> | <a href="#1">Method
        One</a> | <a href="#2">Method Two</a> | <a href="#results">Results</a></p>
        <p class="style14"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="intro" id="intro"></a></span></span>Introduction</p>
        <p>We bought two different brands of sugar and chocolate chip cookie,
          so all told we had four different cookie types to test. The consensus
          was simply to look for one ingredient in the cookies and compare the
          amounts present in each cookie. Our first idea was to see what made
          the cookie rise.</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/cookie/materials.jpg" width="360" height="200" /></p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <p class="style14"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="1" id="1"></a></span></span>Method One: Potassium Carbonate</p>
        <p>For the first experiment I wanted to see how cookies rise, and also
          compare the differences in these mechanisms between <img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/cookie/HCl.jpg" width="220" height="260" align="right" />different cookie
          types and brands. Every cookie would have a compound similar to potassium
          carbonate which breaks down under the heat of the oven to create CO2
          gas that pushes the cookie out and makes it rise. I decided to use
          HCl to make the cookie&rsquo;s rising component break down into CO2;
          however, there was so little that it was impossible to measure accurately.
          Instead I decided to measure and compare a more abundant component,
          salt. </p>
        <p class="style14"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="2" id="2"></a></span></span>Method Two: Silver Nitrate</p>
        <p>To find the amount of salt in the cookie dough I decided to dissolve
          bits of cookie dough in water. Then when the salt was dissolved, I
          did a silver nitrate test to find the salt content. The first step
          of the lab was to be able to isolate a relatively clear solution containing
          the cookie dough&rsquo;s salt content. The solution
          needed to be clear in order for the white silver chloride precipitate
          to be visible. After (unsuccessfully) trying to filter the mixture
          of cookie dough and water, we used a centrifuge to separate the unneeded
          cookie dough from the water. First the dough was mixed with the water
          so that there were no large chunks left, and then the test tube was
          put in the centrifuge. The liquid was extracted from the test tube
          after it was run in the centrifuge and the process was repeated until
          the liquid was sufficiently see-through (that is to say, there would
          be enough of a contrast between the color of the liquid and the silver
          chloride to make it differentiable):</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/cookie/centrifuge.jpg" width="410" height="188" /></p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <p align="left" class="style14"><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="results" id="results"></a></span></span>Results</p>
        <p align="left" class="style24">Once
          the optimum opacity was achieved AgNO3 was added and the silver chloride&rsquo;s
          mass was measured. From that information the mass of the salt could
        be extrapolated:</p>
        <p align="center" class="style14"><span class="style24"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/cookie/results.jpg" width="461" height="145" /></span></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Bad Police Radar Jammers</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/bad_police_radar_jammers.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=18" title="Bad Police Radar Jammers" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.18</id>
    
    <published>2005-05-31T23:04:47Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:16:41Z</updated>
    
    <summary>There aren&apos;t too many good ways to block a police radar, but there sure are a whole lot of bad ways! After refuting one possible method, we decided to aim for the very worst. Here&apos;s our explosive attempt at beating the law!...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        There aren&apos;t too many good ways to block a police radar, but there sure are a whole lot of bad ways! After refuting one possible method, we decided to aim for the very worst. Here&apos;s our explosive attempt at beating the law!
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="style20">Question: </span>If a cop uses IR to check your
        speed, couldn't you just use a simple remote control to jam his signal?
        - Gant</p>
        <p align="left" class="style23"><strong>Answer:</strong> <span class="style25">Short answer&hellip;
          no. The first and most practical reason is that remote controls are
          relatively weak and they don&rsquo;t have a great range. </span></p>
        <p><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/lidar/lidar.jpg" width="125" height="95" align="left" />Furthermore
          when we talk about remotes they would have to be 500 times brighter
          than the 25 milliWatts the police tracks you with to beat the retroreflective.
          Also seeing that remotes have short ranges, you may be out of luck
          because at shorter range, the problem of jamming is worse. The police
          LIDAR (laser radar) power grows as the range decreases, and your jammer&rsquo;s
          power grows exponentially slower. The reason jamming is not feasible
          is that you have to broadcast into all directions, reducing the power
          aimed at the LIDAR gun. So that is the disappointing answer, but instead
          of leaving you with that, we thought we&rsquo;d propose less intelligent
          solutions! Clearly you could go out and buy jammers and other such
          tools, but why not create our contraption:</p>
        <blockquote>
          <p class="style14">The Fog of Deception!</p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>WARNING: <em>This is not serious, we would never recommend this to anyone.
          We just chose the worst possible solution so we could use some physics.
          This is illegal and dangerous!</em></p>
        <p>We did some research into the police LIDAR. The acronym stands for <strong>li</strong>ght <strong>d</strong>etection <strong>a</strong>nd <strong>r</strong>anging
          or <strong>l</strong>aser <strong>i</strong>maging <strong>d</strong>etection <strong>a</strong>nd <strong>r</strong>anging and
          it is a technology that determines distance to an object or surface
          using pulsing lasers. These lasers have a very high resolution, and
          we can exploit that weakness.</p>
        <p>LIDAR is used commonly in meteorology because it is very sensitive
          to fog, clouds, and aerosols. This means if we can just track police
          cars (with scanners) we can block the signal with some sort of diffusion
          of particles.</p>
        <p>We could use spray aerosol, but that would get the car dirty. Instead
          we can generate smoke! Here&rsquo;s how we did it:</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/lidar/set.jpg" width="470" height="113" /></p>
        <p>Instead of using a fog machine we strapped a small rocket motor to
          the back of the car. We tethered it to a gunpowder igniter and strapped
          it to some wires. Then once a police car shows up we connect the circuit
          to the 12V battery and ta-da! The LIDAR can&rsquo;t see the car, and the
          police can&rsquo;t see the license. </p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/lidar/test.jpg" width="545" height="132" /></p>
        <p>Look at the video below to see our prototypes
            in action.</p>
        <p align="center"><a href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/lidar/car_1.mov" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/lidar/mov.jpg" width="288" height="300" border="0" /></a></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Triangle Brain Twister</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/triangle_brain_twister.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=19" title="Triangle Brain Twister" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.19</id>
    
    <published>2005-05-23T23:09:16Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:17:17Z</updated>
    
    <summary><![CDATA[How good are your logic and geometry skills? Here is a "basic" problem with shapes. Try it out and see how fast you can solve it... our current record is &lt;30 seconds. But if you get frustrated, we have an answer guide!...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        How good are your logic and geometry skills? Here is a &quot;basic&quot; problem with shapes. Try it out and see how fast you can solve it... our current record is &lt;30 seconds. But if you get frustrated, we have an answer guide!
        <![CDATA[  <p>At Mad Physics we generally specialize in answering random science
          questions and blowing things up along the way. Today, though, we have
          a purely digital problem, no lab involved! When someone sent us this
          problem we thought it was good fun, but when we got the answer we got
        an idea. We decided to be evil and test you first!</p>
        <p>Here is the problem:</p>
        <p>In the figure (below) there are two triangles made up of four shapes.
          The shapes are constant (they do not change between figures). Since
          they have the exact same surface area, why does one triangle have a
          one square gap?</p>
        <p>Look at the diagram carefully what is wrong? The grid is there to
          help you.</p>
        <p>For hints and answers <a href="#help">scroll down</a> (don?'t worry
          they are hidden at first).</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/triangle/triangle-madness.jpg" width="450" height="477" /></p>
        <p>Got it? How long did it take you? Our record is &lt;30 seconds! <a href="http://www.madphysics.com/contact/">Let
          us know your time</a>.</p>
        <p><span class="style17"><span class="style13"><a name="help" id="help"></a></span></span>To view the hints simply highlight them. The font color is currently
          white!</p>
        <p>Hint One (subtle): <font color="FFFFFF">Think of it as if it where are graph? y=mx+b</span></font></p>
        <p>Hint Two (more obvious): <font color="FFFFFF">How about the slope, hmmm.</font></p>
        <p>Do you give up? <p>Answer: <font color="FFFFFF">The second image is an illusion, it is not a proper triangle because it does not have a a straight hypotenuse.</font></p>
]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>C02 Canisters and Thermodynamics</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/c02_canisters_and_thermodynamics.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=20" title="C02 Canisters and Thermodynamics" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.20</id>
    
    <published>2005-05-02T23:23:20Z</published>
    <updated>2006-03-12T03:55:20Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Find out why carbon dioxide canisters get cold after they release their gas. The laws of thermodynamics are revealed in this one....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        Find out why carbon dioxide canisters get cold after they release their gas. The laws of thermodynamics are revealed in this one.
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="style20">Question: </span><span class="style22">Why
            is it that when you puncture a CO2 canister, it gets very cold after
            all of the gas escapes?</span></p>
        <p align="left" class="style23"><strong>Answer:</strong> <span class="style22">Air
            canisters can be found everywhere, be it on a scuba mission, a paintball
            fight, or just around the local home improvement store; but did you
            know they could teach you a lot about physics? When you puncture
            a small CO2 canister, there is a violent blast of air, and then afterwards
            you are left holding a very cold empty cartridge. This phenomenon
            is a direct result of the first law of thermodynamics.</span></p>
        <p align="center" class="style23"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/canister/canister.jpg" width="500" height="150" /></p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#intro">Intro</a> | <a href="#results">Results</a></p>
        <p align="left"><span class="style14"><a name="intro" id="intro"></a>Introduction</span></p>
        <p>The first law of thermodynamics is often referred to as conservation
          of energy. The law states that the total input of energy must be equal
          to the total output in addition to the change in energy contained in
          a system. The bottom line is: energy can be transferred, but never
          destroyed. This relates to the canister in that when the air is released,
          the energy needed to complete that act is taken from the canister itself.</p>
        <p align="center"><a href="#top">return to top</a></p>
        <p align="left"><span class="style14"><a name="results" id="results"></a>Results</span></p>
        <p>It can be assumed that the contents of a canister are in the liquid
          state (very rare of carbon dioxide). When the canister is punctured,
          the liquid vaporizes quite quickly. In fact, the vaporization occurs
          at a constant rate of 7-8 MPa (that&rsquo;s 7-8 mega Pascals or 7-8
          million pascals) at a temperature of approximately 20-30&ordm;C. Because
          of the rapid vaporization, the energy needed will be taken from the
          canister&rsquo;s shell (thus dramatically reducing the temperature),
          but also from the carbon dioxide lowering the vapor&rsquo;s final pressure.
          One can see the canister releasing gas into a balloon in the following
          image sequence:</p>
        <p align="center"><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/canister/expansion.jpg" width="470" height="310" /></p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>World Jump Day Debunked</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/world_jump_day_debunked.htm" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.madphysics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=2/entry_id=22" title="World Jump Day Debunked" />
    <id>tag:www.madphysics.com,2005:/ask/test//2.22</id>
    
    <published>2005-02-27T05:50:28Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-12T23:18:12Z</updated>
    
    <summary>There is a website that claims that if everyone jumps at a certain time, the earth will shift as a result. Logic would dictate that this cannot be done, but for the rest of you out there who demand a little more...we have the proof!...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Afrooz Family</name>
        <uri>http://www.madphysics.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.madphysics.com/ask/">
        There is a website that claims that if everyone jumps at a certain time, the earth will shift as a result. Logic would dictate that this cannot be done, but for the rest of you out there who demand a little more...we have the proof!
        <![CDATA[ <p><img src="http://www.madphysics.com/media/ask/jump.gif" alt="Jump Everyone!" width="390" height="107" border="0" align="left" />Misconceptions
          often get carried away. There is a new website called <a href="http://www.worldjumpday.org/" target="_blank">World
          Jump Day</a>. It asks for people to jump at certain times on July 20,
          2006. They claim that if it happens, the world will shift out of its
          orbit and there will be no more global warming. In fact their website
          says quite plainly that &ldquo;Scientific research has proven that
          this change in planetary position [that's caused by jumping] would
          very likely stop global warming, extend daytime hours and create a
          more homogenous climate.&rdquo; My first complaint in this claim is
          that he says <strong>research has proven </strong>it is silly to make
          such claims because science is definitely not the end all be all.</p>
        <p>The goal of science&mdash;particularly physics&mdash;is to further
          our understanding of the world by looking at thimgs differently and
          thereby challenging convention. Einstein became what he was by challenging
          the foundation of his field. Therefore, if we are to assume that because
          some unnamed man with uncited research claims that bouncing will change
          our ecosystem, you have to take it with an enormous grain of salt.
          Anyway, to show you how claims <strong>should</strong> be made, I am
          here to refute the whole argument with numbers and basic physics. By
          the way, I shouldn't be making this agrument to begin with! That is
          because if the people who are jumping are from earth, then the forces
          of them leaving and landing would cancel each other out, and their
          net force would be zero (Newton's 3rd law). So, for the sake of it,
          let's invent new people!</p>
        <p>Let us assume that the average (mean) mass of earth&rsquo;s 6 billion
          inhabitants is 100kg (a gross overstatement, but the numbers are better).
          That would make their collective mass 6x10<sup>11</sup>kg.</p>
        <p>Now let&rsquo;s assume that all these people have fused into one sphere
          of that mass. If we assume that acceleration due to gravity on earth
          is 10ms<sup>-2</sup> then if the mass jumps one and one fourth meters
          it will land with a velocity of 5ms<sup>-1</sup>.</p>
        <p>The kinetic energy produced by the jump would equal to:</p>
        <p>75x10<sup>11</sup> Joules or 7.5 TJ (tera-joules)</p>
        <p>7.5 TJ is approximately 2% of the energy released by one Megaton of
          TNT, which is also the size of a modern H-Bomb.</p>
        <p>Basically the United States has tested similar bombs, but the earth&rsquo;s
          remained fixed.</p>
        <p>That may be because the earth has a mass of 6x10<sup>24</sup> which
          means that the mass I spoke of was:</p>
        <p>10,000,000,000,000 times smaller, which means the displacement caused
          by everyone jumping would shift the earth a tiny fraction of the radius
          of a hydrogen atom.</p>
        <p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=QED" target="_blank">QED!</a></p>
]]>
    </content>
</entry>

</feed> 

