10001110100110101
Man, I slept like a log. I do remember hearing quite a bit of thundering and showering during the night and throughout the morning. Didn't matter to me much, I wasn't going to walk to school during a thundershower.
So it's a bit later in the day than I had expected. Brought my camera along just incase I bump into JI, and I've just been warned by KNZ that he's upgraded his camera since last we met..
Got the barfridge from Dusty who was kind enough to drive it to my place. The fridge was pluged in, and some of our stuff was hastily shoved into the tiny box in the hopes that most of our food will be preserved for a few more days. I checked it out this morning, and it seems as if everything is going fine, the Eggo waffles are somewhat frozen, the maple syrup is cold, and the butter was soft. (I left the butter in the broken fridge.)
Oh yeah, I didn't get sick last night so I guess the syrup (and the rest of my food) was okay. To answer MJO's question, the syrup wasn't cloudy, nor were there little strands of.. stuff in it (which happened to some syrup I had once and I got sick - more probably because I thought I was going to be sick rather than actually getting physically sick.
To answer Laz's observation that water beads up on the car windows. You should remember that car windows (and the rest of the car) are usually coated with a wax or similar substance to force the water to clump up into tiny droplets so that they would easilly roll off the window (or the rest of the car, you don't want water sitting around to long if you don't want rust). If you examine the front windshield of the care closely, you can see that the water in the areas where the windshield wipers do not go over tend to clump together. However, the water on the parts of the windshield where the wipers actually do traverse tends to be runny, and doesn't clump together. That's because the wipers have scraped off the wax over time, and exposed the glass underneath. (Many years of careful study went into this - yes, yes, I was a bored little child.)
Also, the water may not actually flow out of the bottle and all around the glass (if it were opened) because by then, the cohesive forces may be strong enough to win over the adhesive forces. Finally, if one does throw water against the wall of the space shuttle, it does not necessarily mean that the water will spread against the wall. Depends on how adhesive the water is to the wall. If they wax the walls (for example) the water should be repelled, or at least ball up when it does hit the wall.
Anyway, I have some club stuff to attend to and another question from Science Teasers to pose. This should be a quick and easy one:
Floating Teaser:
Which is heavier: a full cup of water with a piece of wood floating in it, or a full cup of water without the wood?
Enjoy!
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 16:57:57 (UTC)
No wood, silly. Both are "full" so assume the same volume of (water+wood). Since the wood is "floating" it has a lower density, that is mass per volume. Therefore the cup's better off without the wood there. Probably tastes better too.
FlyingS<e-mail>
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 19:25:11 (UTC)
I agree with darcy - the cup without wood is heavier.
The thing that tripped me up was that there is less water involved in the wood+water case (if we assume that by "full cup of water" means full to the brim).
Dr. Hwanalytic
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 20:08:56 (UTC)
What!?! That makes no sense! The wood will only displace water equal to its WEIGHT - the rest of the wood will be above water. So the only water cup will have the weight of X ml of water, the cup with wood will have (X-weight of wood) ml of water, PLUS the weight of the wood.
The two cups should weight the same amount, unless the wood is being held under the surface by an outside force!
Mister Man Mikeo
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 20:14:43 (UTC)
*sigh*
doesn't anybody understand Archimedes Principle!?
the water displaced by the wood has to be of equal weight to the wood if the block is floating, according to the Principle.
Thus, they WEIGH THE SAME in both circumstances.
The volumes have nothing to do with it, since the wood is of unknown shape!
Reg of Samos<e-mail>
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 20:32:04 (UTC)
Mikeo - if the piece of wood is fully submerged (but floating), would you then agree that the wood+water combination is less than the all_water combination?
By "floating in the water", I thought it was fully submerged...
I suppose if it's floating on the surface of the water, then yeah.. the weight should be the same.
Dr. Hwanalytic
Friday, May 12, 2000 at 21:02:40 (UTC)
I think Hwanalytic should be stripped of his doctorate!
Even if the volumes before and after are the same, the amount of water displaced STILL has to be the same weight as the wood. Total weight is the same!
to demonstrate why "density" is irrelevant to things floating or not: take a piece of plywood and place it in water edge-first... that is, don't place it in the water like a raft, but rather as a knife cuts a cake.
See if it doesn't freakin' sink until the whole board is submerged (and no further). By contrast, the "raft" shaped piece of wood will barely sink at all, since its cross section is so much larger.
Reg of Samos<e-mail>