View previous topic | View next topic

Helium

Page 2 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

bemahan
641548.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:06 pm Reply with quote

Posital wrote:
The Albert Hall has a volume of 3060000 cubic feet.

I want to know how many balls it takes fill the Albert Hall!

We have to count them all!


Is that the volume of the entire building, or just the auditorium? Do we take out all the fittings and fixtures?

 
Spud McLaren
641551.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:12 pm Reply with quote

This thread has become a load of balls.

 
Posital
641555.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:19 pm Reply with quote

Hmmm... not sure, so here we go regardless:

3060000 cubic feet = 86649551 litres

Wiki.Answers.com wrote:
What is the volume of a football field? Answer Can be anywhere from 80 decibals to 130 decibals in a college stadium.

Hmm... how many decibals in a cubic litre... something's not quite right here...

(should that be decibels?)

 
bemahan
641557.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:21 pm Reply with quote

Posital wrote:
Wiki.Answers.com wrote:
What is the volume of a football field?

I thought we were talking balls here?

 
Posital
641563.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:30 pm Reply with quote

Wiki.Answers.com wrote:
a reasonable estimation is 3.75 x 10-3 m3

That's better - I think that's 3.75 litres.

So that's 23,106,547 footballs would fill the Albert Hall.

Now that's a whole load of balls however you choose to fill them.

 
Efros
641567.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:06 pm Reply with quote

Better choice would have been the house of commons, more balls spoken in there at least.

 
bemahan
641569.  Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:12 pm Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
Better choice would have been the house of commons, more balls spoken in there at least.

There's a lot of hot air in there too.

 
Davini994
641641.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:10 am Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
g is not a lot, certainly small enough to make a nonsense of any by the eye measurements and also small enough to not affect the the kick by too much.

I'll agree with the first bit, 2g isn't a lot. But making a nonsense of the eye measurements I don't; the ball travels the length of the pitch, the pitch we know is 100m. Until we have an explanation of how that is cheating then it stands.

Using a human kicker is the perfect experiment too by the way, seeing as the question is how far can a human kick a rugby ball filled with helium.

 
Efros
641644.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:21 am Reply with quote

No one, as far as I am aware, said anything about cheating, my point about the human kicker was that no matter how good the kicker they cannot reproduce faithfully a kick time after time. I thought the question was whether a helium filled ball could be kicked further than an air filled one, to do this you would have to standardize the kick, easiest way to do this is to use a device that can be calibrated rather than the, and thank god/evolution (your preference) for this, relative unpredictability of a human kicker.

 
PDR
641647.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:28 am Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
No one, as far as I am aware, said anything about cheating, my point about the human kicker was that no matter how good the kicker they cannot reproduce faithfully a kick time after time. I thought the question was whether a helium filled ball could be kicked further than an air filled one, to do this you would have to standardize the kick, easiest way to do this is to use a device that can be calibrated rather than the, and thank god/evolution (your preference) for this, relative unpredictability of a human kicker.


Indeed. I would like to have seen (say) the standard sample of 50 kicks with the same ball to establish the inherent variance (say +/- three standard deviations) compared to any observed difference between the light and heavy ball. I strongly expect the inherent varience would be several orders of magnitude greater than any observed difference in this case, and so some form of mechanised (repeatable) kick-emulator would be needed to take these kinds of measurements.

PDR

 
Efros
641649.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:37 am Reply with quote

3X SD was the basis we used in instrument characterization, usually sufficient to identify signal from background noise. We normally used 30 replicates, 50 would be better but time and money were a factor. Considering that the normal usage of the instruments would actually be 3-5 replicates characterization studies were pretty exhaustive, I always had issues with scientists using statistical analysis on piss poor data populations.

 
PDR
641670.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:10 am Reply with quote

The standard technique for extablishing machine and process capability (originally codified by Ford in the much praised Q101 series) uses samples of fifty, but that was just to make the subsequent arithmetic easier. It had an excellent graphical method which could take fifty samples and extract the mean, median, range, SD points and process/machine capability coefficients in about 4 minutes using nothing more than a pencil and ruler (no calculations necessary). It was based around a grid and linear/normal graph paper - someone must have taken ages to come up with it, but it was superb.

PDR

 
Davini994
641708.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:06 am Reply with quote

Nevertheless, if no-one has ever kicked a standard ball 100m in the history of the multiverse, and El-Mazri kicked the helium one 100m on the first go, then that is strong evidence. To say the least.

If you wish to discount that piece of evidence, then you would need to have a theory as to what happened and demonstrate it.

How do you know your proposed kick machine is reproducing what a man does? Perhaps there is something different that El-Mazri can do with a helium ball, a different technique, perhaps a higher foot speed. To test what will happen in a given situation, run the situation.

 
Efros
641712.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:23 am Reply with quote

Any theory based on a single piece of evidence is not a theory but a single observation.

 
Sadurian Mike
641713.  Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:27 am Reply with quote

In fairness; although the video didn't show him kicking the ball 100m more than once, it did seem to indicate that he repeatedly kicked it further once it was filled with helium.

I don't know the science or lack of it, but I did see a man apparently* kick a football further once it was being filled with the gas than before it was so filled.


*An important caveat.

 

Page 2 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group