Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    10
  • views
    7,786

About this blog

AP FZX C

Entries in this blog

 

On a Lighter Note...

Just like how mirrors are colorless and have a color, black holes are TITLED black and do not have one. Fzx obviously didn't go to kindergarten. So I thought I'd just go through this black hole phenomenon real quick because I personally find it super interesting. And now: a brief summary of black holes and radiation... Black holes are NOT black! Not in the least. They glow. Black holes glow slightly and give off light throughout the whole spectrum! This includes visible light. This form of radiation is dubbed "Hawking radiation" after the famous professor Stephen Hawking. He was the first to propose this (legitimate) theory. Black holes are constantly giving off this glow and therefore losing mass. Ergo, unless another source of mass (such as interstellar gas or light) sustains them, a black hole will eventually evaporate altogether! Smaller black holes, in theory, emit radiation a lot faster than larger ones...so as predicted, if the Large Hadron Collider creates miniscule holes through particle collisions...they should evaporate almost immediately! In this way, scientists should be able to study a black holes' decay through radiation and learn much more about the how's, why's, and find answers to some of our most ominous, universal questions... Leading us to a much...brighter...future(;

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: Notre Dame

My mom and I took the 350ish steep, stair trek to the top of Notre Dame about one week ago. That's weird to say. But we walked up to the bell tower and stood atop the enormous building with impeccable timing...not sure if we were supposed to be, but right before we left the Notre Dame spire and bells began to ring beneath us! With the glory and beauty seen and heard from walking up those stairs, it was well worth the breathlessness. One of the most famous parts of Notre Dame are it's grotesque gargoyles. They function actually as drain pipes and to see and rub against as you walk along the narrow corridor in person was kind of mind-blowing to think of the history... Looking at these gargoyles however, I realized that they were in amazing shape. Of course, they are made of solid, durable rock, but even so: they're outside ALL THE TIME. The changing weather and season over 900 years? And they still look good! Well...not good...grotesque. I mean they're not cute. But they're really cool. So I started thinking, it's funny. We walked up the 350ish stairs that were incredibly WORN. And here are the exposed gargoyles atop the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, perfectly fine! The stairs had actually be worn down so much they were CAVED in! There were little dips in them as you walked up which made climbing them that much more difficult. So I came to the scientific conclusion that MAN is more erosive that our natural weather and environment. It's kind of sad really. Seeing the stairs so worn by the force people step upon them with every single day compared to the mostly natural obstacles the gargoyles have to endure...they look better! I guess the sad part is that we take for granted that WE are much more impactful than the weather. All kinds of claims about the changing weather and how it's affecting us are made every day. But to see the sheer difference between the perfection of the gargoyles and the trash, worn down stairs, it was cool to think that the rock of the gargoyles could withstand the weather and erosion for 900 years. While by comparison, the human forces upon the stairs was much more influential. It just goes to show with a little bit of force and erosion fzx what strong impact WE have on the things around us and how we should probably stop blaming natural causes. Of course, this was bound to happen, Notre Dame is unbelievably tourist-y, it can't be prevented! But just for a little pep-talk about the rest of the environment: we need to start taking responsibility for our actions, all of them; and we need to stop taking advantage of and walking all over things(;

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

What do you ZINC of that?

Just a quick background, in Paris we had a lot of mishaps...but obviously I haven't really been focusing on them because the trip was so amazing. However, I just learned something recently that would've been really cool to know while I was there. I had quite the cold by the time I woke up Wednesday morning. And as it turns out, the metal zinc can actually calm and aid colds! I just personally find it interesting that a metal could do that. Especially one not as valuable as platinum and gold, or not as shiny as copper and silver. Zinc is a blue-white metal, and one of the most common found it Earth's crust. It is completely natural, but must be refined if pure zinc is desired; it tends to be found in Earth combined with other elements. It is also a transition element, making it slightly less predictable than some of the other elements on the edges of the Periodic Table. A few more things to zinc about: -zinc is very brittle -when heated up it becomes very malleable -it is a crystalline solid (hexagonal crystals) -galvanization is one of its main uses Galvanization: the process of applying a protective zinc coating to steel or iron to prevent rusting. What is zinc good for? Well, when mixed with other elements such as oxygen sulfur, etc...zinc appears in a huge variety of random and everyday objects. -making brass -old style cathode ray tube televisions -oscilloscopes -fluorescent lamps -luminous paint -weed killer -rubber -plastic -ink -concrete -sunscreen -cosmetics -various alloys -dental amalgam -gun metal -types of solder And more! These are just a few of the incredibly different things that zinc is a valuable part of. That makes in no mystery and at the same time a HUGE mystery why the zinc keep your water tank from rusting is also keeping you healthy! Cough and cold remedies as well as vitamin tablets and supplements and even breakfast cereals contain zinc! In the United States, with a good diet, zinc deficiency is very rare. But in developing countries it is an enormous problem that I never would have even thought of! It never seemed like a widely significant element, but lack of it can lead to many health problems or illnesses. So I guess...moral of the story...eat your brass and rubber!

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: Sainte-Chapelle

The Sainte-Chapelle is a royal medieval Gothic chapel; another that we visited in Paris to see the incredible history and breath-taking beauty of the chapel's phenomenal stained glass. Now, while reading this blog, focusing on the fzx of creating stained glass, keep in mind that this church was built in 1242 and finished in 1246 and for some perspective: it is about three times older than AMERICA. Walking underneath the shimmering of the Sainte-Chapelle rainbow, stained light I would have been impressed if the chapel was built last year. It's gorgeous atmosphere was unlike none other and I don't think words can do it anymore justice. So I will just get on to a little more history of it...and then stained glass! The Sainte-Chapelle chapel was commissioned by Louis the IX and later became his personal chapel. The 15 tall windows circling the upper part of the church actually can be READ and tell the story of the bible. Looking up at them you can read from the bottom to the left, to the next line and up to the right and then so on, reading as if it were a backward "S" shape that your were following. Starting at the first window, the story of Genesis and Adam and Eve is clearly and amazingly portrayed as you see every scene within the window. Moving to the stained window directly above the alter, Jesus wearing the Crown of Thorns adorns the head of the chapel. All of the notable Biblical scenes are depicted along the walls or in the rose window and through old age, are STILL visible. How was this all done? Let alone...how was it all done nine hundred years ago!? To make stained glass... 1) An artist creates a sketch. Then full-sized drawings are layed out for the different windows/panels; these compositions for the seperate sections are called cartoons. The shapes for the glass, the details to be painted, and the colors are generally indicated on the cartoon. In the early Middle Ages these were drawn on whitewashed boards. 2) DIfferent colored pieces of glass are chosen for the design and painted on the glass surface with white lime wash to next be cut. These rough shapes are cut with a dividing iron with a heated tip, which heats the glass, and breaks it where it needs to be done so. A grozing iron further reduces the size of the glass pieces to be as desired. This is an iron bar with a slot at each end that was used to chip away at the glass edges until a piece was perfected. 3) Next, the pieces are painted with a pigment formed from mixed iron oxide and gorund copper with powdered glass. To apply the pigment, wine, vinegar or even urine was also mixed in. Now all painted from a gray to black color, the pieces are set in a kiln to fuse the paint to the glass. This method works by the idea that the during firing, the powdered glass in the paint melts and merges with the glass surface, permanently staining the piece. a. To make a face, much detail and precision is necessary. Guidelines are painted on the back of a piece and then broad layers of thin paint are done on the front with a wide brush. b. The guidlines on the back are rubbed away. Thicker paint is added over the front washes with a brush, now to create the detail. c. Washes, also thin, are re-painted on the back to enforce shading and give the illusion of depth. Then the piece is replaced in a kiln. 4) Narrow strips of lead hold the pieces together to create a full panel. These strips, "lead came," is flexible and adaptable. In this way, it can be fitted around the various shapes of glass. 5) Glazing is the next step which assembles the pieces of stained glass into a window to be set. As the pieces are finished they are set on the cartoon and connected with lead came to form a panel. A combination knife and hammer was used for this process in the Middle Ages. The knife cut the lead, and the hammer secured nails to the work board to keep the window still during assembly. Finally, a solder joins the lead came together. It is made up of an alloy of lead and tin that melts/sets quickly at a fairly low temperature. 6) Lastly, the panel must be cemented. This secures the leads and waterproofs the window. A semi-liquid cement is applied with a light brush and then is covered with a layer of sawdust or chalk to absorb excess liquid. The full Medieval recipe is unknown, but definitely included both chalk and linseed oil. Then the panel is scrubbed down with a dry brush until only connecting cement remains underneath the lead. The mystery still remains on how exactly it was completed without the technologies we have today. But if it was done: it happened, and it was a true blessing to be able to witness the outcome... Before I leave you in amazement, here's one more fun little tidbit...if you look in the very last window...you'll actually see...who? Well, of course: the king! Louis the IX! He ordered himself placed in the stained glass as he PURCHASES the Crown of Thorns! The story goes, that Louis the IX actually did buy Jesus' crown of Thorns from a street merchant and owned it. He kept it stored in Sainte-Chapelle. But of course...street vendors are dishonest, conniving and persuasive. Louis IX probably bought a highly expensive tumbleweed. If alive today, Louis IX would probably be suffering from some intense buyer's remorse.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: Sacre-Coeur

Marching around Paris with my mom and friend Michel, we took the journey up to Montmartre: the highest point in France. Up on this enormous point is the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Paris, otherwise known as the Sacre-Coeur Basilica. This is a monstrous Roman Catholic church dedicated to the heart of Jesus that was started in 1875 and in 1914 was completely finished/built. This church is home to the largest bell in the world! At a whopping nineteen tons, this bell can be heard in a 25 mile radius! For this, somewhat loud reason, the bell only rings once a year...on Easter. And guess who was in Paris on Easter? Conveniently: me! Michel and I hiked up the 400-ish stairs to the top of the dome and saw all of Paris from the tippy-top! However, for a reason unknown we did not hear the bell ring. Whether we were too far away, or asleep or underground in the metro (probably) at that time, I have no idea, we did not hear it ring. But no worries because I can still talk about the fzx of bells! Phew, right? Okay...so the main question and discussion here will be the shape of a bell. For instance: WHY? Why is a bell shaped the way it is? Fzx! Of course! So a bell is typically shaped for two reasons. REASON ONE: The circular shape of a bell is extremely structurally strong and sound. This allows the ball to be struck with a greater force than if the shape was flat or had sharp edges, which would be more prone to cracking. The circular shape also allows for a sound wave to travel, guided along the easy perimeter of the bell. Therefore, the standing waves form along the circumference of the bell. The resonance from these standing waves is where a bell's sound is derived from. REASON TWO: Shaping of a bell makes the bell's timbre more musically pleasing! The increasing diameter from the top of a bell as you go down to the bottom ring allows for the bell to ring at different frequencies all along its height. These varying frequencies can be tuned in a large enough bell and then create a complex musical chord when the bell is struck. The different diameters in the bell contribute to different harmonics which will all ring at different notes and sounds! SOMETHING ELSE: To perfect the bell's sound, a tubular bell is actually best. These are the types of bells used by a symphony orchestra. A tubular bell is a tuned bell. The actual bell shape may not produce the best tone out there, but it all depends on what you are looking for. Church bells are enormous, loud, look and sound pretty. But maybe they aren't as tuned as the intricate tubular bell. Most people sort of take bells for granted I suppose, because in the end, they are quite simple and very common. We hear them at church, at the door, on ice cream trucks, when we walk into stores...but the reality in sounding as perfect as they chime is that a lot more fzx goes into it! Well, I'm going to have to leave you with that for the day! I think I just heard the dinner bell(;

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

#68

Every week, we do an economic update for economics class. This week we were to choose a company found in Rochester's Top 100 businesses. This means that this is a privately held company and is ranked based on their three most recent years of growth. These companies have at least one million dollars in revenue annually; the ranking accounts for both dollar and percentage growth. For this project I decided to choose a fzx related company, specifically: Cutting Edge Laser Technologies. This is a wholesale/distribution company based in Fairport that employs a mere seventeen Rochester area workers, and yet, they are #68 on the Rochester Top 100 companies! I chose this company especially because of its fzx background. The website is vey easy to navigate (which probably adds to the company's successes) and has an entire page dedicated to the fzx of laser therapy! This company specializes in equipment used for veterinary lasers...for your dog! MLS Veterinary Therapy is quick to relieve pain, it reduces inflammation and speeds healing! There a multiple types of lasers used for Veterinary Therapy. Each laser has different characteristics resulting in different effects. If you go onto Cutting Edge Laser's website and navigate ever-so-slightly you will easily find the characteristics listed and described as below: Energy: Measured in joules. Time: Defined as the duration of irradiance of target tissue and is measured in seconds. It is also known as impulse duration or impulse width. Wavelength: Penetration depth is directed by the laser emission wavelength and the type of tissue: chromosphores. Frequency: Defined as the number of impulses emitted during the unit of time and should reflect the condition being treated. Power: Rate at which energy is delivered and is measured in watts. Fluence: Energy density or dose. Irradiance: Power density or power delivered per unit area. Emission Mode: Continuous Wave (CW) Or Pulsed Wave (PW). Impulse Duration: Duration of laser emission, also called impulse width. These lasers and their characteristics have been clinically tested and proved efficient at world-renown research institutions across the globe. Believe it or not, they really, really do help humans and animals to heal faster and better than ever. To me it still sounds fairly scary, but advances are certainly being made in great bounds. I guess the term laser is currently associated with too much evil for our generation. But eventually, they'll probably be incorporated in medical practices everywhere and no one will think a thing of it.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: The Palace of Versailles

Although, the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe are classic Paris stops, the Palace of Versailles, is right outside of Paris; and for me, it's a must! It was on my list of the few amazing sights I really desired to see as we prepare for our trip. The history and beauty of it is breathtaking on Google Images...so I can't even imagine it in person. Honestly, I could pick anything about Versailles and talk about the fzx of it! The gardens, the architecture, even some of the historical events relate! However, with the growing field and interest in optics, I think that the Hall of Mirrors hits closest to home. In the 17th century, the Hall of Mirrors was referred to as The Grand Galerie, or in French, La Grand Galerie. It served as a daily passageway, waiting spot and meeting place, frequented by courtiers and the visiting public. The historic symbolism behind it, is that it stands as a demonstration of French economic prosperity. This is clearly represented through the three-hundred-fifty-seven mirrors that decorate the seventeen arches (ARCHES!!!) opposite the windows. This attested to France's new production of mirrors, a high-value and luxurious item at the time, capable of stealing the monopoly away from Venice. Now onto the mirror physics! We have a lot to cover. To discuss mirrors, I'll first go over light. The law of reflection states that when a ray of light hits a surface, it will bounce a certain way. Like a bouncy ball thrown against the pavement. the incoming angle (the angle of incidence) will ALWAYS equal the exiting angle as well (angle of reflection). Light itself is invisible until bouncing off something and hitting our eyes. Like when it bounces off the lake and hits our eyes, it's bright! As we know. So there's a lake a few miles from my house, but let's take this to outer space... In space, light also cannot be seen until it hits something and scatters itself. Then, the light is visible. The scattering process of light hitting a surface and then becoming bright and visible to human eyes is called diffuse reflection. Mirrors are different. Mirrors are spooky. Mirrors have a smooth surface, and lights reflects off of it without disturbing the incoming image. This is named specular reflection. But...in this case...a reflection shouldn't reverse left and right...right? And it doesn't! Mirrors reverse front and back...like a printing press! A few more facts... VIRTUAL IMAGES The type of image produced by a flat mirror is called a virtual image. We see the light as coming in a straight line out of the mirror, when in actually our eyes are playing tricks on us! Light is actually just bouncing off of the mirror. REAL IMAGES A virtual image cannot be focused. But some mirrors, concave mirrors, produce a real image. A real image CAN be projected onto a surface. A fun fact... Did you know that mirrors, somewhere, deep down, have a color? Yeah. They do. Please trust me. Thanks. Mirrors are green. Usually in books or movies mirrors are depicted as being silver. And in theory they'd be ideally clear and would project a specular reflection and technically 'be' whatever color was projected onto it. Why? Because in a perfect world, a mirror would reflect all light equal to what it receives. But we do not live in a perfect world. Most of our mirrors reflect green light; and ergo, when looking in one: everything has a (spooky) green tint! A theoretical phenomenon that will blow your mind... Of course, if we want to look at some theoretical ideals, Jean-Pierre Luminet submitted a paper enititled, "A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors," to the Cornell University Library. September 21 of 2005 his paper examined conventional thinking comparing the infinite universe to a series of mirrors. What does that mean? Well. Sit down and hold on to your socks, folks. It's about to get freaky. To summarize his thoughts, our universe could - in theory - be relatively small. But doesn't it go on forever? Or so maybe it just seems. Perhaps we are just given the ILLUSION of a larger universe, like a hall of mirrors. After all, recent astronomical studies add support to a finite space with a dodecahedral topology. Maybe the universe is just a tricky paradox; maybe it's like looking through a mirror, reflected in another mirror, reflected in another and another and another and so on for infinity! It's mind-boggling to consider. But it's certainly possible. But it makes your brain tired. So take it all with a salt of grain. Moral of the story: we plan on making Versailles a full-day trip. There'll be a lot to do! In just this one hall there's an infinite amount to see! So try not be too jealous, and wish me luck on my trip to Wonderland (France) and through the Looking Glass (Hall of Mirrors)! I couldn't really figure out how to word that pun...so I reflected it as best I could.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: The Arc de Triomphe

I thought maybe I should talk about the actual Arc de Triomphe. It's only fair. So I decided to use this opportunity to research the technical and mechanical fzx behind the construction and strength of an arch. Apparently, a stone arch is thought to be quite simple in the world of architecture. But if built incorrectly, gravity certainly takes its toll and the whole thing can easily come crashing down... Yet there are many tricks to a successful arch. These techniques include: buttresses, pointed arches and pinnacles. Some definitions? A buttress is a project support of stone or brick against a wall. A pinnacle is a high pointed piece of rock. This works similarly to a pointed arch, in that the shape itself is less prone to caving in, except that these are individual pieces rather than the arch's shape as a whole. A pointed arch, is simply when an arch points upon the top. And with a pointed arch, arcitects may keep in mind that the destabilizing sideways force is always less than with a rounded arch. Alas, the Arc de Triomphe is rounded, which means that the sideways force is substantial, especially considering the size of this famous monument. The Neoclassical Arc de Triomphe is the tallest free-standing arch in the world! And to stablize an arch like this, downward force, or weight can help counteract sideways force! This is why stone may seem risky, but is actually the best option for material in building an arch! Additionally, height is achieved by stabilizing the columns. The main thing to keep in mind is downward forve versus sideways force. The weight much be more significant than that of the sideways force so that the arch remains upright completely, rather than caving in. That would be a disaster. Amazingly enough, construction of the Arc de Triomphe began on August 15 of 1806 and wasn't opened for thirty years. In 1836 when the monument was finished, it did not collapse. And why? Because fzx kept it upright and arcitects are smart. Again, I can' wait to go to the Champs-Elysees and see such an arch and it's angles and beautiful, magical, wonderful fzx! Maybe I'm being a little sarcastic...but, I mean...this stuff really is cool... I'll keep you updated.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

LAS VEGAS: The Arc de Triomphe

Okay...so the Arc de Triomphe is based solely around history. It's a simply, yet architecturally sound and magnificent design and landmark. However, it makes for a boring fzx blog. So I thought I'd talk about the Las Vegas replica of the Arc de Triomphe! We won't be going there exactly on our trip, I'll see the real thing, but this story involves a motorcycle! You may be wondering how the Las Vegas replica and a motorcycle versus the actual, famous Arc de Triomphe, has more exciting fzx involved. Well, that's why I'm here. So, once upon a time, long ago, in 2009 and January to be exact, daredevil Robbie Madison copleted his jump of this ten story replica! On this specific New Year's Eve, this stunt maniac climbed on his Yamaha motocross bike and sped down the Las Vegas strip outside the Paris Casino at a whopping 90kmh! He then flew up a ramp 37 meters, into the air, to finally land on the model of rance's iconic monument. To top it all off, this 27 year old stuntman stuck the free-fall landing onto a landing ramp below! The stunt was flawless. Afterward, Madison noted, "It's definitely a milestone in my life to overcome the fear I had." And he amazed all of the millions of viewers that night. Especially as he could still smile with a bloody, possibly broken hand! "The hand kills. I think I broke it." How did his hand break? Well, the impact from the stunt was so great, that he managed to crack bones in his hands that gripped the bike so tightl as he, on the bike, smashed the ramp. The deceleration he underwent happened in a much shorter time frame that the body would like. This change in momentum was too much for his body to handle, and the force so great, that he resulted injured. Yet, proud. To back up a little more, his runway speed began at approximately 54 miles per hour. That is, 24 m/s in other terms. And from there, we can look at both his kinetic and potential energies as well as time it took his to get from points A to B to C! Of course we don't have all of the excact values and variables. But if it's between getting information to complete the problem, versus experimenting ourselves... I think we all know which is the safer bet.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

PARIS: The Eiffel Tower

April Break starts this Monday - and what a blessing that is! After a crazy weekend filled with sleepless nights, and Drowsy Chaperone performances, we'll be off from school... And I'll be off to Paris... Still in shock at how soon my trip is, we've been putting together plans for months, we finally have our agenda plotted. So I thought I'd take the next few blog to both brag...and explore some of the fzx-y aspects of the amazing sights I'll see on my vacation! Obviously we'll be touring the Eiffel Tower. You can't go to Paris and skip that! It's extraordinarily beautiful, carefully built and designed, admired worldwide, extremely famous and...scientific? YES. The Eiffel Tower was built in 1886 and designed by Gustave Eiffel. What many people don't know is that it was initially supposed to be destroyed after 20 years! However, the ingenious architect he was, Gustave Eiffel credited the tower with scientific purpose and therefore saved it from demolition! Some scientific arguments Gustave Eiffel made include that the tower was prime for meteorological and astronomical observations, physics experiments, a strategy vantage as well as an optical telegraph communications point, and even a beacon for electric lighting and wind studies! He stated, "It will be for everyone an observatory and a laboratory the likes of which has never before been available to science. It is the reason why, from day one, all of our scientists have encouraged me with their utmost sympathies." No one wanted the tower destroyed! From 1889 on, many scientific measurements and experiments were conducted on the tower; apparatus such as barometers, anemometers, lightning conductors, and more were later installed on the tower. Gustave Eiffel himself had an office on the third floor for his personal astronomical and physiological observations. Also on the third floor, the very day after the Eiffel Tower was inaugurated, Gustave Eiffel installed a meteorology laboratory! His passion for aerodynamics called for a series of gravitational observations to likewise be conducted from the tower. Later, from 1903 to 1905 gravitational instruments were implemented. He imagined, "an automatic system that would slide along the length of a cable stretched between the Tower's second floor and the ground." He had a wind tunnel built at the foot of the tower and from August of 1909 to December of 1911 carried ouyt five thousand trials! Additional scientific experiments on the tower include: Foucault's Pendulum, the mercury pressure gauge, physiological studies and in 1898 we mastered radio contact! Eventually, the Eiffel Towers' innumerable scientific purposes and its use as an enormous antenna would save it from total destruction! Needless to say, I can't wait to see it in person! Mainly for the reasons above, of course.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

February 8th

My mom finally decided that she's let me do the Polar Plunge this year. I'm extremely excited beacause I've wanted to do it for a long time now, and I always forgot to ask...so I guess it was never really about getting permission...just...finally asking to do it... Anyways! I was thinking about it, and how I know that the shock of cold water is good for your body because it's revitalizing. But, it can definitely become dangerous very easily. Yet, I never quite knew how! Now...thanks to the internet...I do! And...thanks to aplusphysics.com...so will you! Turns out, cold water immersion leads to hypothermia. There are simply a few phases before and prior. 1. Cold Shock Response 2. Cold Incapacitation 3. Hypothermia 4. Circum-rescue Collapse The Cold Shock Response refers to the change in your breathing when you immerse your body in freezing cold water. In lasts for only about a minute, but there is an automatic gasp reflex in response to rapid skin cooling. If the heading goes underwater immediately, then this reflex occurs under water and drowing becomes extremely likely. But, as long as you don't drown, the second component of the Cold Shock Response is hyperventilation. This is also caused naturally and will subside as long as one does not panic. Prolonged hyperventilation can lead to fainting however, so the main focus is to work on breath control. The component to this phase is vasoconstriction. This is cardiac related in that you are forcing your heart to work harder to pump blood throughtout the body. This is potentially deathly for those with any sort of heart diseases or conditions. The second phase is Cold Incapacitation. This happens after being in the water between 5 and 15 minutes. In an effort to preserve heat in your core, vasoconstriction decreases blood flow to the extremities; this protects the vital organs and allows the periphery to cool. Muscles and nerves don't function well when cold.Therefore, during this time frame, limb capability and movement gradually decrease and it becomes a lot more difficult to stay afloat without a floatation device. Finally, Hypothermia kicks in. The main misconception here is the time it actually takes to acquire it. For most adults it can take upwards of 30 minutes to contract even minor Hypothermia. Knowing this fact actually causes a lot less panic in a survival situation. So, this blog post could literally save yourself. Remain calm. And you're welcome. The last phase is Circum-rescue Collapse. This happens just before, during or after rescue and the symptoms range anywhere from fainting to death. It happens just around rescue because, as soon as saving becomes imminent and inevitable a mental relaxtion occurs. Blood pressure may drop and muscles may fail which can cause collapse or in extrme cases cardiac arrest and potentially death. The key point is that heart function is dramatically impacted by form of extraction and the way that a victim is handled when being rescued. Ergo, while it may seem counter-intuitive to training for other types of rescue, knowing what NOT to do is the most important in Hypothermic situations; especially when it comes down to saving a life. Honestsly, I'm glad I looked this stuff up before committing to the challenge. I mean I'm still doing it, no doubt. This is just a warm up for when I go to Finland and experience their culture. You start in a 100 degree Celsuis sauna (the temperature at which water boils! Then you run and jump into a hole in the ice into the frigid ice water. The Polar Plunge is pure practice.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

"Deflate-Gate"

In lieu of the Water-Gate Scandal, the New England Patriots' Scandal has been dubbed "Deflate-Gate." It's absolutely everywhere, but for those of you who don't follow football (keep doing you) basically, at the AFC Championship 11 of the Patriots' 12 balls were found to be oddly...and illegally...deflated. By regulation, a football must be - at the minimum - 12.5 pounds per square inch and at the maximum - 13.5psi. At this specific game, we found out that these 11 balls were 2 pounds per inch LESS than the minimum regulation. Now this poses the questions: Did the New England Patriots cheat? Does starting quarterback Tom Brady have anything to do with the alleged crime? And most significant to the American public: Will Superbowl XLIX still pit the Seattle Seahawks against the New England Patriots...or nah? While all of the questions are indeed a threat to society as we know it, I'd like to take a quick look at the football situation. A deflated football WOULD logically be easier to hold. (That's the point of the scandal.) In the wet and slippery conditions of the AFC Championship, a slightly deflated ball would be easier to grip, because if it's volume is capable of stretching further than it would usually would, the surface area of the ball is more easily altered and manipulated. In other words, more room for volume, more room to stretch the ball within your hand as you catch it. Therefore, more room to hang onto it. So the scientific answer, stated by material scientists, is yes: it would indeed be easier to catch and grasp. Tom Brady claims he did not alter the balls in any way and has no knowledge of anyone else doing so. Some people disagree with his claims to innocence. Of course, it would be a perfect crime if successful. Each team uses their own balls, so the other team wouldn't have even caught the cheat! Of course, the 'cheat' this fact was revealed. The real matter lies in whether or not the cheat was known and intentional. Maybe it was an accident. Psych! How could that POSSIBLY be? 11 balls? All tampered with in an advantages way. No coincidence. There are many arguments one way or another. Like...why didn't the referee who checks the psi of the ball catch this before the game? Could the team equipment manager have messed with the balls in some way? What DOES Tom Brady actually know? I don't know who's right or who's wrong. Frankly I don't care that much. In my opinion every team cheats except the Buffalo Bills. Put them in, coach.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

"NOT THE GUMDROP BUTTONS!" III

To finish off my Shrek blogs, I'd like to remind everyone of the attached scene in Part 1. Toward the end, Lord Farquaad shines a bright light into GIngy's eyes to get information out of him. And he is successful! Let me give you a quick play-by-play from the 2001 Dreamwork original hit: Shrek. Lord Farquaad: [playing with Gingy's legs] Run, run, run as fast as you can. You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man! Gingerbread Man: You're a monster! Lord Farquaad: [tossing legs away] I'm not the monster here, YOU are! You and the rest of that fairytale trash, poisoning my perfect world. Now tell me, where are the others? Gingerbread Man: Eat me! [spits in Farquaad's face] Lord Farquaad: I've tried to be fair to you creatures, but now my patience has reached its end! Tell me, or I'll... [reaches down] Gingerbread Man: NO! Not the buttons! Not my gumdrop buttons! Lord Farquaad: All right, then! [swings around light] Who's hiding them? Gingerbread Man: Okay, I'll tell you... Do you know... the Muffin Man? Lord Farquaad: The Muffin Man? Gingerbread Man: The Muffin Man. Lord Farquaad: Yes, I know the Muffin Man. W-who lives down on Drury Lane? Gingerbread Man: Well, she's married to the Muffin Man... Lord Farquaad: The Muffin Man? Gingerbread Man: THE MUFFIN MAN! Lord Farquaad: She's married to the Muffin Man... What a play! Okay, so again, bright interrogation lights = inofrmation. Why? Turns out, this is simply a minor torture technique. It intimidates the victim. Because it it so easily damaging to the retina when the eye is exposed to a bright light for too long a period of time, people tend to WANT to close their eyes, but refuse to based on the situation. It gives them a headache, makes them feel pressured and uncomfortable. It puts them in an immediately defensive mood. With the victim moderately blind/impaired, the interrogator becomes basically invisible and eye-contact virtually impossible. In addition, the pupil is quite a tell. When, lying one is proved to have a fluttering and/or a dilating pupil. The interrogated will also commonly look LEFT when hiding something. These microexpressions become much more obvious in the face of bright lights. The victim feels that too. Them knowing that their every reaction is being watched intensifies their reactions overall. Interrogation is both a mind game and a play of intimidation. Bright lights are a helpful tool, that both look extremely sketchy and are usually at one's disposal...according to crime movies at least. However maybe that's the whole game. A bright light's reputation may be it's only secret. Watch your back. I'm not sure what type of confidential information I just revealed to you.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

Save 15% or More on Car Insurance

Does it take two to tango? Does it take adhesive fzx for a gecko to stick to a ceiling? The answer to both of the aforementioned questions is - shocker - YES. Aristotle was the first to question the everlasting ominous phenomenon that I'm sure haunts everyone at night: HOW, if Gecko's have mass (ergo, gravity pulls them downward), HOW we ask, can they POSSIBILY walk on the ceiling? Incredible! I'm sure you've never really pondered this in your life beacause most people's interaction with geckos is on Geico commercials and the gecko Geico is British and stands on two feet. But believe it or not, this fzx-defying beauty of nature has been baffling scientists for over 2,000 years. The force of gravity MUST be balanced by another force. There is no other possible way this occurence could...well...occur. There are many theories. And many experiements. Let's sneak a peek: Suction Pads Could the gecko have squid-like suctions pads on its feet? Perhaps. But...when scientists trapped a gecko in a tank and suck all of the air out of it (the fact that the gecko didn't drop dead is what truly baffles me) yet the gecko could STILL walk upon the ceiling! Glue Maybe geckos squeeze out a paste that helps them stick to odd places! Nope. After examining a tank geckos had ventured and crawled around in, scientists found no evidence of stickiness or any type of residue for that matter. Static Electricity Like a balloon, an electrical force could plausibilty be created that utilizes static, or non-moving, electricity to stick the gecko to the ceiling. But wait: moisture ruins the flow of static electricity. Even in a hot and humid tank, a gecko can still waltz on walls! "What REALLY happens, Margaret!?" Well, curious fzx student, I'm glad you asked! Allow me to educate you. Setae are tiny hairs that cover every geckos feet. Under an electron microscope, each setae is seen like a small brush with hundreds of spatulae, or little bristles at the ends. As a gecko walks along a glass tank, the organic and carbon-based bristles brush up against the silicon dioxide surface. These two materials create electrostraic forces...van der Waal forces...which means...ADSORPTION! (As mentioned in my last blog!) Then - like balloons - the organic molecules stick to the silicon dioxide ones with every bristle providing a slight upward force to the gecko and against the ceiling/wall. That way, there is more than enough force to balance and exceed that of the gecko's weight. Iguana tell you more. But I think I'll save it for my next frog post.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

Sassy 'Post-It Notes' from Margaret Kowalski's Backpack

Before I finish off my Shrek series I had a few more thoughts on adhesives. One being, the fzx behind Post-it® notes. I recreationally collect sassy Post-it® notes. You'd be surprised...but they are always applicable. Imagine having the printed phrase, "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?" on hand every second of the day. It's exhilarating. Or something like, "Why yes, I am overqualified." And maybe, "I think you heard me the first time." They're so so so useful, and I highly suggest investing. Anyways, I've only had a mere use, not quite a reason. WHY do post-it notes work? I did some research from a website that described life on Earth as, and I quote, "[A] bit like being a giant living Post-it® note—only with legs!" so I think my information is fairly reliable. With my collected data, I learned that: A.) The back of a sticky note contains a continuous film of adhesive as well as microscopic glue bubbles. [These can only be seen with an electron microscope]. B.) These glue bubbles are called microcapsules and they are about ten to one hundred times bigger, but much weaker, than the glue particles on the average and conventional Scotch Tape®. C.) When pushing a sticky note into place, som of the larger microcapsules cling; just enough to support the weight of the tiny slice of cute yellow paper...hopefully decorated with a sassy phrase. Well. There you have it folks. Just a quick and simple lesson on one of my quirks as well as as the fzx behind it. One piece of advice I'd like you to take home with you tonight: Just remember, that every time you attach and peel off a Post-it® note, dust and dirt attach to the adhesive capsules. Therefore, the notes prgressively and gradually lose their stickiness. Sure, it WILL go on sticking for awhile. Alas, Post-it® notes are a thing to be valued. So don't waste their magic. I mean fzx.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

"NOT THE GUMDROP BUTTONS!" II

If you watched the Shrek clip, you'll also recall that in that same scene, Lord Farquaad attempts to pull off one of Gingy's gumdrop buttons, which is where we get the sassy famous line, "Not the gumdrop button!" I thought maybe I'd use this as an introduction into the fzx behind adhesives. Like in band-aids, tape, glue...or gumdrops! It doesn't sound very fzx-y at all...but when I was a kid I always wondered how when I made projects that I could glue something into place and it would slide around until it dried. What does letting these adhesives sit actually DO that make them stick? Well according to my studies, (Dorothy Ann - The Magic School Bus), there are two types of forces that dictate the behavior of things that stick. There are cohesive forces as well as adhesive forces. Examples? Water is created by hydrogen and oxygen naturally joining. That's a cohesive force. An adhesive force is like when a water droplet sticks to a glass window pane without any other type of glue, but with a different type of force. The gumdrop clinging to Gingy would be of the adhesive type force. Under that there are a few sub-catagories as well: Adsorption This is glue without any chemical bonds. Just a load of tiny attractive forces caused by the spread out adhesive wetting the surface and forming numerous (and weak) electrostatic forces. These are called van der Waal forces after the physicist Johannes Diderik van der Waal who first discovered them. Chemisorption When glue is used on certain surfaces, like some plastics, it can sometimes actually form much stronger and tighter chemical bonds. Mechanical Adhesives can also work primarily physically without any sort of chemical attractions or bonds. For instance, when an object with holes in it is covered in glue, the glue seeps into it and grips the holes to connects the objects. Diffusion Finally, this is the theory that molecules from the two glued surfaces swap around and mingle together gluing the objects as one. Gingy's gumdrops were probably glued on mechanically with frosting. In fact, I'm sure they were. So, while Lord Farquaad did almost pluck off his candy buttons, he didn't, because even with just a little adhesive, the purely physical bond was still fairly strong. In the end, we can assume that Lord Farquaad may be small, but he certainly could rip a gumdrop off of a gingerbread cookie. But why didn't the gumdrop pop off right away? Well, as I have just explained, there's a simple scientific answer. And it could just save your life. Or maybe only your gumdrop buttons.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

"NOT THE GUMDROP BUTTONS!" I

I'm not going to waste time explaining the theme of Shrek. If you don't know Shrek...get outta my swamp. I'm going to take this time to go through another series of simulation problems based on Lord Farquaad's of Far Far Away torture technique that he used upon Gingy the Gingerbread man. Part 1: Gingy Projectile Spits on Lord Farquaad Part 2: Attempts to tear off gumdrop buttons Part 3: Sheds light in Gingy's eyes To begin, Lord Farquaad, attempting to get information about the Muffin Man (who lives on Drury Lane), first snaps of Gingy's legs. After calling him a "Monster!" from lying on the pan, Gingy spits on Lord Farquaad. This is fairly impressive. Especially because he is a cookie. Anyways. Let's see how fast he would have to spit if Lord Farquaad was standing approximately 2 meters away from Gingy and 0.5 meters above him during this scene. To find the angle at which Gingy would have to spit we take the inverse tan of (0.5m) / (2m) = 14 degrees. The spit hits Lord Farquaad pretty quickly. To find out just how fast we can use the equation t = ( y / 2a ) ^ (1/2) = ( 0.5m / 2(10m/s^2) ) ^ (1/2) = 0.158s So using some kinematics equations we can decide that... 'x' plane: x = Vot + (1/2)at^2 {a = 0} x = Vot {Vo component = v'cos(14)} 2m = [v'cos(14) m/s] (0.158s) 12.658 m/s = v'cos(14) v' = 52.324 m/s But again, for a gingerbread cookie to spit at all is pretty impressive. If you're interested, here's the link to the scene:

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

"I was hiding under your porch b/c I love you"

Everyone remembers when the charming childhood film "Up" came out. Parents cried; kids sobbed; babies teared up. It was great. Very...UP-lifting... Anyways, let us delve into the wonderful world of plausibility. Could Mr. Frederickson's house ACTUALLY fly? If so...how many balloon's would it truly take? Let me draw you a mental diagram: so we have the house, attached to a series of balloons. The focre upward is the buoyant force, also known as air density, by the downward acceleration of gravity, by the volume of the balloon. The downward force is that of mass times downward acceleration. For the house to even begin to lift, the buoyant force must equal 'mg.' To fly, it must be greater than 'mg.' Let's throw some values in there. Avg. Air Density: 1.225 kg/m^3 Gravitational Acceleration: 10 m/s^2 Volume of a balloon: (4/3) (pi) (r^3) = (1.333) (3.142) (0.5) ft.^3 = (1.333) (3.142) (0.125)ft.^3 = 0.524 ft.^3 Avg. Mass of a House: 54431.1 kg Let's say we need 'x' balloons. (x) (p) (g) (V) = (m) (g) (x) (p) (V) = (m) (x) (1.225 kg/m^3) (0.524 ft.^3) = (54431.1 kg) x = 84,797 That's quite a lot of balloons. Like...that's almost 85,000 balloons just to TAKE OFF let alone fly to Paradise Falls! Plausibility? Slim to none. Luckily, this is a Pixar movie and it doesn't quite matter if it's realistic or not. Interesting though...to me at least. I guess to sum it all up, Russell once said: "That might sound boring, but I think the boring stuff is the stuff I remember the most."

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

Geology cont'd...

I just thought that with such an amazing chance to have gotten to meet Brother Guy, I ought to share a few more interesting tidbits that I learned from him. This time, not quite as in depth, but moreover on the nature of what he does. Brother Guy has lived in Italy and worked for the Vatican for 20 years. Recently, his job changed slightly so that now he's travelling more around the United States, but doing astronomy nonetheless. Why does the pope need an astronomer? Honestly, I had no idea. I just thought it was swag. Turns out, it's an issue of the church proving that they do support science and are not against it. In studying the stars and planets, gathering this infomration is a way for the church to show their support of science, but also claim to have EVIDENCE of their religion and God. In using their scientific discoveries, the church can explain them as yes, incredible, but also reliant on a creator. Which is a clever tactic. One of the weirdest things Brother Guy told us was that before he really did much fzx or astronomy...he did geology. Geology, turns out, is the absolute CORE (pun intended) of planetary science. As probably one of the only people I know that LOVED Earth Science, this was fantastic news! This ROCKS! (pun intended again! #onaroll!). It definitely sparked my interest further in astronomy. Brother Guy started at Boston College and then transferred to MIT where he sort of...blindly signed up for Studies In Planetary Science. Little did he know: he had just joined the GEOLOGY department! I just found this extremely interesting because the second I think of space, I think of the Twilight Zone and darkness and theoretical fzx and black holes; but that is certainly not the case. It's funny, but it all made me think. Rocks are the realest thing we have as humans to explain the universe. They are easy; they are simple; they are finite. And they are 100% directly related to the studies of something so expansive, so complicated and so completely unknown.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

11cm. from Mars

Over Thanksgiving break, I had the absolute pleasure of getting the opportunity to meet Brother Guy Consolmagno of the Vatican. Brother Guy is the curator of the Vatican's Metorite Collection...or in simpler terms: the pope's astronomer. Sophie DiCarlo, of Irondequoit High School, God bless her soul, knows Brother Guy as her cousin; and knowing how interested I am in astronomy was able to set me up with the chance to meet and talk with him about his job as well as attend a lecture he gave to the parents of her younger brother's Boy Scout troop at the United Church of Christ this evening. Wow. That was a mouth full. While in the probable, four total hours I have ever spent in his presence, I learned innumerable random things about fzx and astronomy from Brother Guy that I simply haven't the time to go over in it's entirety in one blog, so I'm going to focus on the most amazing thing he physically set before us at his lecture earlier today. It was a rock. Well, there were multiple rocks. Some of them were LITERALLY 4.566 billion years old and let me say they looked real great for their age. There were these tiny little pebbly ones in a glass tube that has been parts of asteroids and another two that were pieces of metorites; however, ONE was super dark, compact and solid, while the OTHER was light gray, powdery and airy...if you can use the word airy to describe a rock. He called them 'rare.' I was so surprised...a RARE rock? Are you kidding. Rocks are not rare, welcome to Earth. BUT THEY WERE RARE ROCKS and I think that's absolutely astonishing. We weren't even allowed to touch any of these rocks because they we so rare. He said they had been on display. These were MUSEUM QUALITY rocks. I was just enthralled that there IS an existing rock that legitimate people would be actually mad if I threw it into a lake. Honestly, all this hype about rocks sounds pretty lame, but I am actually very excited about it...these little baby rocks are the T. J. Eckleburg glasses of the universe! I can't believe I was so close to them. Currently my cellphone is farther away from me than those rocks were not an hour ago. And 4.566 billion years ago those rocks were lost in space farther than I could ever imagine. Finally, he came upon a black rock. It looked like something a thug would kick around at a dump. It was awesome. He started discussing elements and what rocks are made of, typically silicon and iron, basic chemistry. And then explained that while there aren't a lot of air elements found in rocks, oxygen was in ALL of these rocks. But the 16-17-18 ratios were different because these rocks were formed in different parts of the UNIVERSE! The chemistry of these rocks was literally tampered with by the solar system...YES --> okay so important thing number 2: this black, dumpster rock he was talking about had CARBON in it...and everyone was like WHAT! And he was like yeah! Carbon? That's different than all the others! This one was also only 0.9 billion years old. Which, I mean, is a good life. But not nearly as long as the pebbles have lived. Point C => He then told us that in the largest sample of this rock, there was a stream of GLASS hardened down the middle. That means, that the surface of this planet must've carried LAVA. And in the glass strip, were BUBBLES which means there is proof of at one point: WATER. Also...it's rusted... Someone from the back of the room goes, "IT'S FROM MARS! Is it from Mars?" Brother Guy laughs and goes, "I'll tell you exactly why this sample cannot possibly be from Mars. You see...when we examine the size of the craters on the moon, we can evaluate how far they can launch debris. We can do that with Mars. And the craters on Mars are not NEARLY large enough to launch this chunk of rock to us." I was very impressed. I was convinced! Then Brother Guy goes, "Alas, from the data we have collected, the elements present and the comparisons we have made, this rock must be from a planet with the same exact, IDENTICAL, atmosphere as Mars." Someone else, "So it's from somewhere even farther away that we don't know about?" Brother Guy responded, "The thing is. How likely is it that there is another planet with the EXACT same atmosphere as Mars, that we do not know about, that is still close enough to have gotten remains onto Earth's surface? What are the odds? No chance. If there's one thing that I've learned about fzx, it's that if it happened, it's possible." If it happened, it's possible. I love that. I love that so much, I will never get over the fact that he said that. I think that's so clever. And true! He continued for just a second more: "So yes, this is indeed a sample from the planet Mars." And I was 11cm. away from it.

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

...No capes?

I am very positive that the most iconic pep talk of my generation came from Edna Mode in Disney Pixar's The Incredible. Stop lying, you 100% know I'm right on this. Up until then the absolute DEFINITION of a superhero was, as put by Bob Parker himself, "[A] great look! Oh, the cape and the boots..." Only to then have everything we've ever known shattered before us in the dimly lit theatre as an anticipating seven year old waiting to see the secrets behind the hero. "NO CAPES!" Edna Mode, everybody. And guest. Basically, in this blog I would just like to take a minute and analyze some of the fzx behind WHY capes are apparently horrible. Which, might I add: after hearing Edna Mode...I concede. "Do you remember Thunderhead? Tall, storm powers. Nice man. Good with kids. November 15th of '58. All was well, another day saved when his cape snagged on a missile fin!" The amount of G's that one would experience flying up on the outside of a rocket is far too many to live through that. Let alone the fact that that type of impulse? Around one's neck? Yeah, there's no chance. "Stratogale! April 23rd, '57. Cape caught in a jet turbine!" Well, sure! The centripetal force of the turbine spinning around - so fast, to keep a jet propellant? Surely, that is enough to pull in a hero and rip her to shreds! "Meta-man: express elevator! Dynaguy: snag on take off!" Same thing with momentum and impulse! With such a drastic change in zero time at all, because J = F(t) the force would be so great, that again, not even a superhero could survive that disaster. "Splashdown: sucked into a vortex!" Now this one is interesting. A vortex? Like a black hole? Because then we are getting into a whole new dimension of things. In a black hole, for instance, the elements of time and space switch places after crossing the horizon. And once the horizon is crossed there is no going back. As something in a black hole reaches toward the singularity it completely stretches and while one wouldn't notice from the opposite side of the horizon, that would be quite the traumatic death. However, in the attached clip, the vortex mentioned looks to be a tornado. And, in the eye of a tornado, all is completely calm. But the centripetal acceleration of the wind around it, if Splashdown's cape were to get sucked in, he would likewise experience enough force due to a drastic change in momentum to break, no doubt about it. Moral of the story...if you want to be safe, I guess Edna Mode is right. #nocapelife #danger #notform #hobosuit #ednamode #fzxforyourlife #iconic #theincredibles2k4

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

#selfie

A little late...but I think it was worth waiting for. There's no place like gnome. I make math 'go places' with my TI calculator!

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

The Toy Story Theorem: Ep. 4

In the spectacular finale to Buzz Lightyear's famous 'flight,' he lets go of the ceiling fan to free fall onto Andy's bed. Please. Consider the following: In my previous attachments, I used practical numbers, but not that would launch Buzz up to grab ahold of a ceiling fan 7m above the ground (which is the average height of a bedroom). So bare with me as we use that as his starting position now and still consider 2.426 m/s his initial velocity. Using the rest of my long-ago decided upon heights, I will now find Buzz's final achieved velocity before he sticks the landing in front of all the other toys. Tangentially, Buzz will free fall from a 7m height to a 1m height (the bed) ergo a change in height of 6m. Y-DIMENSION: y = 6m Vo = 0 m/s Vf = 0 m/s a = 9.81 m/(s^2) t = ? X-DIMENSION: Vo = 2.426 m/s Vf = ? a = 0 m/(s^2) t = ? To find time, we use the free fall equation in the y-dimension. t = [(2y) / a] ^ (1/2) t = [(2(6)) / 9.81] ^ (1/2) t = (12 / 9.81) ^ (1/2) t = 1.223 ^ (1/2) t = 1.106s Now we have, in the x-dimension: Vo = 2.426 m/s a = 0 m/(s^2) t = 1.106s And as an equation we know that: Vf = Vo + at So plugging in...huh. Acceleration will again cancel out. So the final velocity will AGAIN equal the initial. 2.246 m/s? Or at this point - really ANY velocity you end up with, based on actual measurements, will tend to remain generally constant over the course of Buzz Lightyear's crazy journey! Yet, we can put it all together and realize that this entire journey still did only expanded over the length of one bedroom and a one minute long Pixar scene! So I guess that's more believable than not. That's distance is 'x.' x = (Vo) (t) + (1/2) (a) (t^2) x = (2.246) (1.106) + (1/2) (0) (1.106)^2 x = 2.484 + 0 x = 2.484m That's it! Four aspects of fzx in 2.484m! But more importantly, four aspects of fzx in Toy Story! And that's all that really matters. To me, anyways "I'm packing you an extra pair of shoes; and your angry eyes, just in case." ~Mrs. Potatohead Sometimes, I find fzx extremely frustrating and slightly maddening. But it always pays to walk the distance. I guess that's all I've got to say on this childhood classic. But I'm sure I'll be BRAVE enough to examine another Pixar movie, quite soon

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

The Toy Story Theorem: Ep. 3

As I recall, in the official 1995 Pixar original film, Toy Story, after springing off the bouncy ball in his death-defying 'flight' Buzz Lightyear grabs a ceiling fan, and takes a lap, holding on. We've established that - assuming my estimated heights are somewhat accurate - Buzz will enter this centripetal acceleration cycle at a velocity of about 2.426 m/s! But what exactly IS his centripetal acceleration? I think we'd be lying if we said we've never asked ourselves that question before. Let's take a look: F = [(m)(v^2)] / r And: F = ma So, to find the acceleration we can set: ma = [(m)(v^2)] / r And mass cancels out, so with numbers plugged in - an average ceiling fan having about a 1.3m radius - we would see that: a = (2.426)^2 / 1.3 a = 5.885 / 1.3 a = 4.527 m/(s^2) I hope that answered most of your childhood questions. I will have one more installment of this series as Buzz lets go of the fan, to free fall land back on Andy's bed, right where it all started!

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

 

The Toy Story Theorem: Ep. 2

Let's bounce right in. An elastic equation is an encounter between two objects in which the kinetic energy is conserved from before the objects hit to after. Lucky for us, it seems apparent that Buzz performs a perfect elastic collision! Tens across the board! No splash. We're lucky because that saves us a lot of work. In an imperfect elastic equation, where the collision may be at an angle and not head on, sometimes we end up with a different velocity for each of the objects after the collision. Buzz however, manages to bounce on a giant (classic) bouncy ball and come back without losing velocity and without moving the bouncy ball in the slightest... Sure, Pixar may have some flawed fzx concepts there. Sue them. Actually don't because they do absolutely INCREDIBLE work. That was a pretty good pun, give me some credit! I'm moving UP in the world. Moving on; let's pretend that the bouncy ball does indeed NOT absorb any of the energy and move itself, and Buzz gets it all back. In this case: m1 (v1) = -m1 (v2') In reality, the necessary equation may look a little more like this: m1 (v1) + m2 (v2) = m1 (v1') + m2 (v2') Whereas: m1 = the mass of Buzz Lightyear m2 = the mass of the bouncy ball v1 = Buzz Lightyear's initial velocity v2 = the bouncy ball's initial velocity v1' = Buzz Lightyear's ending velocity v2' = the bouncy ball's ending velocity Again, though - ACCORDING TO THE MOVIE - we don't have to do that much work. And because Buzz is always the same mass, the masses will cancel out once again. So all we will need is his initial velocity and we will then know, that his velocity hitting the bouncy ball is equal to that as he bounces away from it, except in the opposite direction (hence the negative sign). v1 = -v1' In my last blog we found his velocity exiting the hot wheels tracks to be 2.426 m/s. To find Buzz's v1 we will have to do one simple kinematics equation. Buzz takes the time to fall another 0.5m before hitting the bouncy ball, so we have to account for that. Alas, the acceleration in the x-direction is 0 m/(s^2) so to find the velocity we are looking for: Vf = Vo + at But we can cancel out the second term! So: Vf = 2.426 m/s Buzz hits the bouncy ball with the same velocity in the x-direction that he left the hot wheels track with. Now we can find his velocity leaving the bouncy ball which, as we have already established, is the same. Just in the opposite direction! So we change the sign: v1' = -2.426 m/s I know this seems complicated, and mostly hypothetical and Rex may be screaming "I DON'T WANNA USE MY HEAD!" and that's okay. Because no matter what: Toy Story still exists. Stay tuned for what happens next in Buzz Lightyear's exciting flight as he grabs the fan and we explore the great phenomenon of centripetal acceleration...ooohhh!!!

pegkowalski

pegkowalski

Sign in to follow this  

Terms of Use

The pages of APlusPhysics.com, Physics in Action podcasts, and other online media at this site are made available as a service to physics students, instructors, and others. Their use is encouraged and is free of charge. Teachers who wish to use materials either in a classroom demonstration format or as part of an interactive activity/lesson are granted permission (and encouraged) to do so. Linking to information on this site is allowed and encouraged, but content from APlusPhysics may not be made available elsewhere on the Internet without the author's written permission.

Copyright Notice

APlusPhysics.com, Silly Beagle Productions and Physics In Action materials are copyright protected and the author restricts their use to online usage through a live internet connection. Any downloading of files to other storage devices (hard drives, web servers, school servers, CDs, etc.) with the exception of Physics In Action podcast episodes is prohibited. The use of images, text and animations in other projects (including non-profit endeavors) is also prohibited. Requests for permission to use such material on other projects may be submitted in writing to info@aplusphysics.com. Licensing of the content of APlusPhysics.com for other uses may be considered in the future.

×