will it take off?

[daTeacha]

I stopped in to see that kid's parents last night. He is now working for Google. Sounds like a tough job. They handed him an envelope with numerous $100 bills in it as a Christmas gift. They pick him up at his door in a company shuttle and deliver him to work. They provide a free gourmet quality lunch every day. They pretty much looked over his resume', called him and told him he would be very welcome to come work for them. He asked what he would do. They said they didn't know, but if he'd come on board, they would pretty much let him work on whatever project he wanted.

Life is not always tough.

 

[patrick_g]

Rich, One of the jobs I got was like that (not the lunches and ride but the definition of my duties) I went to a place called Digital Development Corporation (owned by National General.) I was interviewed and told by that particular manager he had nothing for me that I was not overqualified for but he knew someone who was not looking for anyone but needed me. He went and told the guy to come go through the motions and hire me. It was a fun job but I should have held out for lunches! One VP defined my job as to do whatever I had to do to make things better. My authority was whatever it required to accomplish the first part up to and including his authority.

Quite different from being a Government lab rat.

Pat

 

[TomKioti]

Rich, One of the jobs I got was like that (not the lunches and ride but the definition of my duties) I went to a place called Digital Development Corporation (owned by National General.) I was interviewed and told by that particular manager he had nothing for me that I was not overqualified for but he knew someone who was not looking for anyone but needed me. He went and told the guy to come go through the motions and hire me. It was a fun job but I should have held out for lunches! One VP defined my job as to do whatever I had to do to make things better. My authority was whatever it required to accomplish the first part up to and including his authority.

Quite different from being a Government lab rat.

Pat

So it all came down to lunch? Happy New Year!!!















It still won't fly.

 

[patrick_g]

So it all came down to lunch? Happy New Year!!! It still won't fly.

Tom, The best "FREE" lunch I ever got was provided by British Aerospace at their London based executive dining facility. They sure put on a great spread.

Still won't fly, huh? Lube the axle bearings and check the mags!

Regarding being a stubborn maveric... One of my personal heroes is Galileo Galalei who had quite a reputaion for being a stubborn maveric. On the ocassion of being persuaded by friends to recant his heretical position on the earth not being the center of the universe when questioined by the Pope to avoid being sentanced to death... He was reputed to have muttered under his breath as he left the Papal audience, "It moves!"

Pat

 

[Egon]

FREE" lunch

There is no such thing as a free lunch. One must pay the dues required prior to receiving what is called a " Free Lunch "

 

[patrick_g]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. One must pay the dues required prior to receiving what is called a " Free Lunch "

Yeah but at one time the only "dues" you had to pay to get a free lunch was to buy a nickel beer.

Pat

 

[Egon]

Still had to have what it took to make a nickel. Big money at one time!

Besides if the nickel didn't keep comming the Barkeep seemed to reduce the availability of the "Free Lunch "

Course there are Dumpsters! For Dining out for some of us.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I did the hot vs cold water freezing experiment. Hot water freezes faster.

I used a plastic ice tray, in which I filled a block of 12 ice cube slots. A 3x2 part was filled hot and a 3x2 block was filled cold. One 60C hot and one 4C cold were filled to the same volume [22cc] and they were each monitored near their center by a 30gauge thermocouple. Each monitored cube slot was adjacent to others filled with water of the same temperature and did not border on any filled with the other T. The 8 cuft freezer was -21C. (About -6F.) Ice tray centered. Moving air.
Heres what happened:

• At the start the hot was 50C and the cold 6C
• The cold cooled to 4C and began to surface ice
• By the time the cold got to 0C the hot was around 5C
• A few minutes afterward the hot reached zero
• Both monitored cubes held at zero for maybe30 minutes
• Then, the hot cube T started to fall
• Nineteen minutes later the cold cube T started to fall

The point that the cube is fully frozen is marked by this drop below 0C. I was amazed. I never imagined the time difference would be this definitive. I am at the point now of sorting out the contributing parameters. I want to electronically log the data, but it will be a learning exercise with the new loggers. Compared to the old ones the new seem to prove the adage that "progress integrated over time = 0". In this case I think it is negative. We are going to try to resurrect the old ones. - - Anyway, I want to weigh the resultant cubes. We have a good scale, but its not as straightforward as one might think. The cubes start to gain weight as soon as they come out in the room. Condensation you know. Ill post progress in a week or so.
Larry

 

[patrick_g]

Larry, Thanks for posting the results here. This is sort of like a peer reviewed but not refereed journal pub, sort of...

What were the disolved gasses (identity and quantity) in the two samples, hot and cold? The hot water most likely had way less disolved gasses. I don't claim we should use "de-aired" tripple distilled water and can see no problem with using tap water but should the hot and cold samples come from the same stock. I don't want to tell you how to run the experiment, just point out some things that could be accounted for.

As the calorimetry is dependent on the mass of the water and its shape (effects surface area - aspect ratios and surface to volume stuff) and since the density is different at different temps, don't we need to make some adjustments? Equal volumes at different temps is not equal quantities of water.

None of my comments are negative criticism just some observations. Hot water typically has way less disolved gasses than some cold water, depending on source. It might be interesting to use both hot and cold water with similar levels of disolved gasses.

One way to get similar samples would be to start with hot very hot water, even boiling and pour off two batches into containers that you fill completely or very nearly so and cover the top with a cover that wold permit pressure to escape but not let air in. For example, you could lay a piece of glass over the open top of a container. Then later when reheating the "HOT" sample in a microwave oven the container will not be broken if the heating is a tad too robust. the other "COLD" sample could be chilled in the cooler with its cover in place to avoid excess contact with air since as the sample coolls its abiulity to disolve atmospheric gasses goes up rapidly.

The disolved gas thing may be interesting but the original problem statement (MYTH) seems to assume no special effort to be made beyond using conveniently available hot water and cold water which implies tap water. It just might be interesting to see what the effects were.

Interesting concept. Integrated over time the improvement is ZERO. I have seen this, a lot. Some things get way more complicated, often beyond the understanding of untrained individuals and members of the priesthood are required to use the NEW IMPROVED AND LEMON SCENTED method and machines but at the end of the day they accomplish nothing more than the original method applied by mortals.

So far I have a week of spare time invested (wasted??) in trying to transfer digital video from a new camera to a new computer to be edited in a new editing program. MS has "upgraded" the OS and it will not talk to the camera. They know of the problem that they caused when changing the speed of the IEEE1394 (Firewire) port and issued a fix. After giving up on my own paultry abilities trying to install the fix, I enlisted MS tech support, in both Canada and India. So far I have nearly 4 hrs of phone time with techs and one hour of it they controlled my computer remotely. Got the patch installed but can't comply with the rest of the instructions as files to which they refer do not exist on my installation of their OS. Supposedly this is simple plug and play stuff that just any Dick and or Jane could easily use successfully. Sony is no help even though every one of these cameras that they sell could put the user through the same hassle trying to transfer video out of the camera to a PC running the popular windows XP. Anyone have a good number for Dick or Jane, I'd like to hire them.

Pat

 

[SPYDERLK]

yeah Pat, were thinking alike on these things. Thanks for the ideas. I will eventually incorporate them, or variances of, in order to get a good handle on the heat budget. The degree of this effect has surprised me and it overrides my concern for a small experimental error I noted. - acouple extra drops were included in the hot cube and I went ahead anyway. This would have favored freezing the cold. Another - placement of T sensed cubes relative to one another in the airflow - requires investigation. Shouldnt be much because environmental chambers are contrived to assure uniform T via universal air movement.
Larry

 

[Egon]

Dick and or Jane could easily use successfully

Pat: Dick and Janes solution!

 

[patrick_g]

SPYDY, I have some experience with environmental chambers and have a rather low confidence in any that haven't been thoroughly checked out. Also the aerodynamics are disturbed by the test samples.

I suggest you instrument two samples just as before but use hot water in both and note the uniformity or lack thereof in freezing times. Repeat the experiment with cold in both locations and observe the difference in the time to freeze. If the water samples of the same starting temp vary as much or more as the difference in time noted for different temp samples then the "noise" is bigger than the effect you are trying to observe and the results are not valid. The results are invalidated by any significant variatioin in freezing times of samples starting at the same temp. This is sort of a confidence builder. If yoiur setuyp can't freeze two equal samples at darned near the same time then the experimental setup (environmental chamber) is suspect.

Pat

 

[SPYDERLK]

SPYDY, I have some experience with environmental chambers and have a rather low confidence in any that haven't been thoroughly checked out. Also the aerodynamics are disturbed by the test samples.

I suggest you instrument two samples just as before but use hot water in both and note the uniformity or lack thereof in freezing times. Repeat the experiment with cold in both locations and observe the difference in the time to freeze. If the water samples of the same starting temp vary as much or more as the difference in time noted for different temp samples then the "noise" is bigger than the effect you are trying to observe and the results are not valid. The results are invalidated by any significant variatioin in freezing times of samples starting at the same temp. This is sort of a confidence builder. If yoiur setuyp can't freeze two equal samples at darned near the same time then the experimental setup (environmental chamber) is suspect.

Pat

Pat. Good point, but unlikely to make enuff difference to swing the other way - - particularly the part about sample disturbing flow considering respective volumes. I did plan to check this tho. My central placement of the 0.06 cuft sample in the 8cuft chamber was the 1st effort to avoid this effect.
Larry

 

[patrick_g]

Larry, No prob, Dude, I think there is more here than our original thoughts covered. This is the fun part. Whenever experiment doesn't conform to theory or preconceived notion, finding out why is so very much more interesting. I'm reminded of a physics prof I had who was squirting little blasts of air with a large eye dropper kind of thing (smaller than a turkey baster) into a vent on the side of an enclosure of a He-Ne LASER and causing it to change emission modes. He could step it through a couple variations and then left alone it would step back down through the changes and return to its original condition. He had a gaggle of obeservers offering esoteric explanations, mostly specious, some incomprehensible, a few quite scholarly, and mine. This was a big attraction at that end of the physics bld and was becoming sort of a contest or competition among various profs and grad students. I remnded tham of my simple explanation and was ignored, again. I challenged all present to prove me wrong and offered to buy the first to do so a rootbeer float. I required noting if I was right. The little blasts of air differentially cooled the laser tube and warped it microscopically altering the geometry of the resonant cavity and in effect slightly changing the allignment of the mirrors. Q.E.D.

I have no ready reference to data on the freezing of water saturated with atmospheric gasses vs de-aired water (like the hot would be.) I don't know if that effect is appreciable in this context or such a minor effect as to be unmeasurable with your setup do to its being a low order phenomenon. It was just a casual observation I made when considering the differences between the samples other than their temp.

You can buy heavy water on the open market and it isn't all that expensive. If you really want to mess with someones mind, compare the freezing rate of heavy water to regular water in equal volumes (staying away from weights) starting at the same temp in both samples.

Pat

 

[Egon]

Last night Egon was having trouble getting to sleep and started thinking/dreaming about freezing water. Please note any Thinking on Egon's part can be dangerous!

Any way he started considering the facts about a hot sample and a cold sample being placed in the same cooling unit and time till both were solid ice.

To Egon it would seem at initiation Brownian movement would be much greater in the hot sample and allow more molecules to depart than would happen with the cold sample. Returning molecules may also be less on the hot sample as compared to the cold one.

Then the heat transfer seemed to come to mind. Is there not some law stating nature tries to maintain things at the lowest energy content possible. This would mean some heat is transferred to the cold sample.

Also means my old truck may eventually rust to oblivion.

Next; isn't there some point when a lot of energy is required to effect a change of state in a substance. This should indicate that the cold sample will wait till the hot sample is at the same temperature.

Now two samples at the same temperature but the cold one having more volume thus contains more energy should take longer to divulge it's energy than the original hot sample.

Thus the results obtained are skewed by placing both samples in the same chamber.



Only way to do it is to keep the samples separated! ehh or???

 

[patrick_g]

Egon, I agree that the effects you mentioin exist but I don't agree that they are the reason for the results reported.

I'm still waiting for the delta T (in seconds) between the freezing times of two samples starting at the same temp. This sort of calibrates and proves the experimental setup capable of measuring the experiment of interest. If you get too much variation betwen equal temp samples then the experimental setup is flawed or there are things going on not accounted for or both.

Now to reduce the problem a bit... The data reported said that the originally hot sample caught up with the cold sample and passed it in loosing heat. This is supposed to support the contention that a warmer sample freezes first.

I claim that at the instant the originally warmer sample passed the originally cooler sample (in a negative direction thermometer wise) that it then became the cooler sample and the originally cooler sample is now the warmer sample. So the NOW warmer sample does not freeze first, does it!!!

There is something beyond simple calorimetry going on here and I am not claiming that it has to be experimental error. It could be all or in part but we just don't know yet.

What if you fill a large insulated coffee carafe with tap water and then fill one side of the tray from the carafe. Put the tray in the chamber for a few minutes and then remove it and fill the other side from the carafe and return the tray to the chamber. One sample is warmer than the other but both have similar disolved gas content.

If the experiment were repeated succsessively with a smaller and smaller temp differential between samples you would expect the freeze times to converge. Why should there be an inflection point above which the hot will cool down, catch the cool and pass it but below which they act the same.

I say again, this is interesting. The calorimetry is really just a yardstick against which the real mystery is able to be observed. Everyone who has a modicum of physical intuition knows that given a "fair" start the cold should freeze first. WHY it doesn't, not THAT it doesn't, is the interesting part that should be the focus of the investigation.

If masses of the samples are equal (not volumes) and the disolved air is equal from sample to sample then the results would be even more interesting. It might be interesting to start with triple distilled water that is heated to boiling and placed into two full containers and kept from contact with air. cool one container and reheat the other in a microwave to get a large delta temp and then put the respective samples in the tray and into the chamber and see what happens.

Triple distilled water is available by the quart or gallon real cheaply at most grocery stores.

CAUTION: Be careful using a microwave to heat a full container. The lid must allow pressure to escape. Any contaminate introduced into water heated beyond the boiling point but without boiling can cause a rapid boiling effect, steam explosion.

Pat

 

[Egon]

Pat, you mean sorta like heating Baked beans in the microwave with no cover over the container??

 

[patrick_g]

Pat, you mean sorta like heating Baked beans in the microwave with no cover over the container??

Well... So what is wrong with that?

1. My microwave has a power setting so you don't have to BLAST everything at full power.

2. One of our microwaves has a probe so you can set the controls to heat the food to the set temp and shut off.

3. And besides I like the texture of "PUFFED BEANS!"

Oh, I think refried beans are more treacherous! Uh.. as regards being explosive... I mean in the microwave!

Patrick

 

[Egon]

If the microwave has all the adjustments [ ours does ] you gotta remember how to set them which can become a problem for some of us. Therefore Blast away.