We discuss vacuums, pascals and show you a special vacuum cannon, which fires ping pong balls at 400 miles per hour. More physics at www.sixtysymbol... With Philip Moriarty
what if you used a vacuum in the tube (as it is currently) but add to the design a valve at the back holding back compressed air? maybe even a large valve with a tank reservoir to accomplish a high volume compressed air release.
He Ka... they don't say that vacuums "suck" because they are actually just blowing. They are blowing air OUT via an engine/motor and 'impeller' system. But the only opening (other than that exhaust) is there at the end of the hose. So, because that air is being blown out, a differential is created at the opening of the hose. It's like pulling the drain in the bathtub -- the drain isn't sucking the water out -- the weight of the other water is simply pushing that water out (well, and it's also being pushed down by the air too).
The plastic end cap hits the can first and does the most damage. Try tethering the cap so it swings out of the way to see what damage the ball alone can do. (Or just the air blast?)
I know this post was likely forgotten; however, in case you never received a proper answer, here it goes (with ascii pictures). The arrows below represent air pressure pushing on all sides simultaneously. . . ▼. . . . . . . . .▼. ► O ◄. => ..► O. . . ▲. . . . . . . . .▲. If we reduce the pressure from one side (creating a vacuum), the object (O) is pushed into the gap. Since there is more pressure /pushing/ from the left without an opposing force, the object will move to the right.
So...? And what, specifically, is your point? Besides, your reasoning is just wrong: if one believes in ANY god (or God, whatever) then he can't be atheist - he is a THEIST, by all means: he believes in God, and never mind its (his) name. If you assume I'm Christian (I've never said that, BTW) then I DO BELIEVE in Jesus as a God (incarnation of it, whatever). Sorry, pal - one can't be a Christian and atheist at the same time, the same way one can't be wet and dry simultaneously,as simple as that
The thing about this is that quantum physics tells us about a sort of "quantum foam" that is everywhere... What apparently happens is that energy is spontaneously consumed to create particles and antiparticles on the quantum level, which are then attracted to each other and annihilated releasing the energy that was consumed. Therefore, even in a vacuum devoid of air molecules, there will still always be these odd interactions occurring.
@JapanForSale There's nothing special about the materials, as there is almost no difference between 1 nPa and, let's say, 1 kPa vacuum in terms of structural integrity. The only thing one have to consider is the pressure difference (not the ratio) between the inside and the outside, which in both cases is about 100 kPa. The material needs to be impermeable and cannot release any gases. In most cases plain stainless steel (like 316) with copper seals is enough. Check 'Ultra-high_vacuum' on wiki.
OK, so here're 2 things: a question, and then an observation. Q: You talked a little bit about the stainless steel vacuum chambers, and the need to evaporate the water on the surfaces. But what kind of materiel is needed to withstand that kind of less pressure inside? What techniques (construction, treatment, etc.) are needed to create something "vacuum rated"? O: Even physicists enjoy the simple act of smacking something into something else. ;) Shows you're not just about cold hard facts, eh?
@Moriarty2112 I think Harris' general topics of scientific skepticism and questioning beliefs are valid, in fact I strongly encourage them, however I think (from the little I have read on him) that most of his arguments are based in opposition towards christian fundamentalism, rather than "intellectual christian views". Before I comment on your latter topic, what do you mean by "key issue"? Do you mean belief in God without proof?
@Moriarty2112 Clever. Though my comment was an exaggeration, a book should never be burned, I still hold my extreme discust towards that book. Not for preaching a differing view than my own, but for doing so in such a disrespectful way. Richard Dawkins has said that atheists must attack and destroy religion. Hypocritical, it is not? Atheists are always saying "Dont force your views/religion on me", but he wants to destroy religion. I have zero respect for that man and any of his works.
@Moriarty2112 I see, well thanks for clarifying. Part of the reason I brought it up was because I wanted to be sure that I hadn't gotten the wrong end of the stick. I imagine it must be hard to tailor your videos so that lay people can follow them without making it too simplistic for the more educated. Perhaps you should consider doing an "advanced" series? That way you could include references to the simpler videos for those who are still new to it all. A Q&A feature could be fun too! :)
I'm quibbling over semantics though, it's not important I'm just feeding my inner elitist. :) At the end of the day, more detail is always preferable to less. I just wanted to draw attention to the crucial difference between saying "suction is the same as blowing" and "it's *not* suction, it's blowing". It sets up a false dichotomy that detracts from the true meaning of the word, and I'm of the belief that any misinformation must be corrected however harmless to preserve the integrity of truth.
@Moriarty2112 "the idea that it is air pushing, rather than the vacuum somehow "pulling"," But when you're talking about a pressure differential - aren't those two definitions exactly the same thing? The low pressure in the vaccuum intrinsically *is* the higher pressure outside the vaccuum. You can't have a differential without both sides of the equation being defining elements. Don't get me wrong I don't think you're wrong- just that you're trying to account for a problem that isn't there.
It's fashionable among academics to point out that things which are being sucked into something are "actually being pushed" in the same way that everyone thinks they are clever for knowing that "tomatoes are actually fruit". But in my opinion, until there is a new definition for suction, the word stands as a perfectly acceptible term. If everything that the word suction is used for can be defined the same way, then that's what the word means. Therefore, saying "it's not suction" is a misnomer.
@Itslvle But establishing a low pressure area to produce the lack in some direction of the otherwise present pushes within a higher pressure region and thus a flow of material just is what "sucking" has always meant in physical contexts. If not, give an example use of the word "sucking" that doesn't mean that (excluding derogatory meanings). A prototypical example of sucking is using a straw; that is the process in play there. Explaining the mechanics of something doesn't negate it's existence.
@Moriarty2112 You don't need further introduction Phillip, as we had some discussion on nanotech a year or something ago (Dave Grohl, stairway to heaven =) ). That detector is an amazing discovery due to it's simplicity! I read Giessibl's biography and the man did some amazing work on AFM. Last year I also was really astonished by the pentacene image produced by the IBM corp. I already knew the structures, but to see they really match the 'ball and stick' models is amazing! Jaco
@jackassanti Assuming both balls have the same size and the pressure ist the same, both balls will be pushed by the same force. Since force = mass x acceleration a higher mass pushed by equal force results in lower acceleration and thus lower speed. Still both balls will have the same kinetic energy (neglecting friction). Work (form of energy) = force x distance. Force is the same, distance (length of tube), too. So the kinetic energy of both balls when leaving the barrel wil be the same.
1 pascal is the pressure of a chocolate bar (100g) on a 1 square meter surface (1N/m^2) 1 bar is 1 kg on 1 cm^2 i think science is more understandable if you can visualize things you can't visualize atmospheric pressure. but you can imagine how much a kilogram feels when you're balancing it on your thumb
Professor Phil Moriarty discusses vacuum: how we may achieve it, why, and its use. Phil uses a light Ping-Pong ball, a long tube, a vacuum cleaner, a tape, and a knife to make a vacuum canon (Air Gun)! Suits high school Physics 1 students. The demonstration is dueable in any elementary physics lab. Recommended.
A) I don't even know what you're saying. B) Law of conservation of information is not even a valid scientific law. It has no experimental or theoretical backing and was made by someone seeking to support intelligent design. You may be thinking of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that entropy is always increasing in a closed system.
@Patrickssj6 If you mean use less energy to acheve and keep the same pressure as on earth Problaly Yes If you mean reach a yet lower pressure probable not. At these pressures your ''Pump'' is basicly hunting for molicules individually and would have just as hard a time no mater what the outside pressure was.
You are convinced to be a Christian, but you are in fact an atheist just like me. Want a proof? Here you go. I don't believe in Thor, and you don't believe in Thor either. I don't believe in Zeus, and you don't believe in Zeus either. I don't believe in Anubis, and you don't believe in Anubis either. We don't believe in those gods because we have no proof of their existence. And we don't have any proof of the existence of Yahweh either. So...
@bowwowvveevva It goes a bit into semantics, but what they mean is that the dust isn't pulled in, rather it's pushed by the air behind it that's rushing into the vacuum cleaner. The way vacuums work is that normally air molecules are rushing in every direction, but say if you remove some of the air in a vacuum cleaner, more air molecules will end up moving in than out and so you'll get a rush of air. Air is always pushing, and vacuum is just a lack of that push.
@Patrickssj6 No, It would infact be less efficient. The vacuum cannon works by creating a very low pressure inside the tube compared to the relatively high pressure on the outside of the tube. When he cut the tube seal, air rushed in to equalize the large pressure differential and thats what forced the ball out at such a high speed. But on the moon, there is little to no air pressure. therefore, a large differential could not be created, so lowering the cannon's efficiency.
So if a particle has a mean free path of several thousand kilometers then wouldn't an area smaller than that be a perfect vacuum? If you have a jar in that really low pressure area then couldn't you just close that jar while there's no air particles in it and call it a perfect vacuum?
@noonebesides Like I said, it goes a bit into semantics. They just wanted to illustrate what is actually happening by using the word 'push'. The term "suck" is often though of as the vacuum pulling rather than air pushing by laymen so it can be useful to speak of pushing to get the idea across. But you're of course right, that's what sucking is.
Awesome! That's a pretty powerful canon, does the pump have to be that big with this type of setup? Just a few days ago I was searching for videos about vacuum., would love to see more about it. Like what the difference is with a vacuum in space and vacuum chamber on earth, besides that there is gravity on earth?
@jackassanti Yeah it would... it probably wouldn't travel as fast as the ping pong ball did, but just assuming that the same amount of pressure is being applied to the golf ball as is the ping pong ball, would it be ridiculous to theorize that the golf ball would impart the same amount of energy on the can as the ping pong ball did?
Yes indead they wrote its a vacuum cannon ... Btw.. Your mum said to me he found some handkerchief in the vacuum which you had to clean. I give you a hint: Use a vacuum cleaner Don't tell me thats not funny for you, cause than you ay you're not funny :P
Atheism would be the belief that there is no god. (which comes with some other beliefs as to how the world works etc. i.e. the big bang.) I think what you are referring to is apatheism, which is the lack of (interest in) religion.
Is there no such thing as a perfect "vacuum" because of the Feynman diagram? In absence of matter photons will interact with another to produce matter? As in opposite to the anihilation of an electron and a positron? Correct me if im wrong. I love this stuff.
@squalea The two balls would have the same kinetic energy coming out of the tube but the golf ball, being harder, would compress less on impact and impart more energy to the can. There may not be a significant difference though.
Fantastic. Sixty Symbols should do a video on the Rydberg constant. Its been talked about a bit on science mags because of some discrepancy on the size of a proton, either of these subjects would make a great video.
End cap flying off before the ball arrives. Too much air in tube, being pressurized in front of oncoming ball? Needs more vacuum! Ball may also too small, and allowing too much air around itself. Maybe add a felt sabot to get a better fit.
@DeaconSwayne You could create a similar device for use on the moon by INCREASING the pressure on the inside of the tube though. Remember that higher pressure will always move to an area of lower pressure. Nature like to be in equilibrium when possible.
how come the ping pong ball does not get stuck in the piipe? To my knowledge, it contains air, and in a vacuum, the ball should expand, as the pressure inside is bigger than the vacuum in the pipe....
But it's not like there's a collection of beliefs all atheists follow. Unless you're going to point out some specific reason I'm wrong, atheism is not consistent with the definition of the word.
@Moriarty2112 Yes I am interested in the cassimir effect and the ex nihilo implications, I'll send you that message when I get the time, I appreciate you offering to help me to understand. :) Thanks!
That is a matter of perspective. To someone who has that kind of humor it may just be the best joke of all time. I am sure you have plenty of jokes you find extremely funny that very few can laugh at.
re·li·gion /riˈlijən/ Noun 1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. 2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
For version two: make the front cap a flapper cap so that it doesn't fly off in front of the ball, but instead just flips up or down when the air starts to rush through
surely its not so much that we "forget" the force exerted by the atmosphere, but rather that its balanced by the air in our lungs which is at practically the same pressure?
Didn't the International Spacestation have some Equipment to do Experiments outside the Station itself? You wouldn't have a Pressure as low as on the Moon though...
Nahh man it was set up,, they Prolly measured and calculated where to place the vacuum in order to get it in the trashcan,, it'd be more impressive if they would've gotten by absolute luck,
@sixtysymbols for how long at 150degrees are you baking out materials? we have resorted to baking out, in a rough vacuum to let the various objects outgas.
@DeaconSwayne I should have been more precise: I meant the other machine that creates a vacuum at nano pascal. Would that machine be more efficient on the moon / space?
No, atheism is the refusal to accept the CLAIM that a god exists, it says NOTHING about whether a god does or doesn't exist - that would be gnosticism/agnosticism.
Why is it not possible to have a perfect vakuum? Because even if it's not that great u will have some spaces where there are no molecules. In those you could put a compressed plastic bag and pull it big in order to even make those areas bigger.
The particle physicists' description of a vacuum (which is somewhat different) will be uploaded soon!
"Yeeesss"
Sorry.
Remember, kids... Physics doesn't suck... It blows!
Damn, Moriarty is badass :D
That is so cool, there is no pull... only push. He's like a science buddah
I was really hoping for an explanation of how vacuum pumps work and how they achieve nano-pascal pressure in the lab
what if you used a vacuum in the tube (as it is currently) but add to the design a valve at the back holding back compressed air? maybe even a large valve with a tank reservoir to accomplish a high volume compressed air release.
What if we then had a walrus in a beret set the whole thing off with a baseball bat?
YES!!
What is the frame-rate of the slow-motion footage? I wanted to estimate the muzzle velocity from the video footage.
I want to see how high vacuums are created. Doesn't it involve condensing the gasses out of suspension?
He Ka... they don't say that vacuums "suck" because they are actually just blowing. They are blowing air OUT via an engine/motor and 'impeller' system. But the only opening (other than that exhaust) is there at the end of the hose. So, because that air is being blown out, a differential is created at the opening of the hose.
It's like pulling the drain in the bathtub -- the drain isn't sucking the water out -- the weight of the other water is simply pushing that water out (well, and it's also being pushed down by the air too).
The plastic end cap hits the can first and does the most damage. Try tethering the cap so it swings out of the way to see what damage the ball alone can do. (Or just the air blast?)
geocarey
There would be no air blast.
Tethering the cap would deflect the ball.
Once the ball hits the cap it’s all just the inertia of the ball.
Yeah!!! Inspiration for Mythbusters!
I know this post was likely forgotten; however, in case you never received a proper answer, here it goes (with ascii pictures). The arrows below represent air pressure pushing on all sides simultaneously.
. . ▼. . . . . . . . .▼.
► O ◄. => ..► O.
. . ▲. . . . . . . . .▲.
If we reduce the pressure from one side (creating a vacuum), the object (O) is pushed into the gap. Since there is more pressure /pushing/ from the left without an opposing force, the object will move to the right.
So...? And what, specifically, is your point?
Besides, your reasoning is just wrong: if one believes in ANY god (or God, whatever) then he can't be atheist - he is a THEIST, by all means: he believes in God, and never mind its (his) name.
If you assume I'm Christian (I've never said that, BTW) then I DO BELIEVE in Jesus as a God (incarnation of it, whatever). Sorry, pal - one can't be a Christian and atheist at the same time, the same way one can't be wet and dry simultaneously,as simple as that
The thing about this is that quantum physics tells us about a sort of "quantum foam" that is everywhere... What apparently happens is that energy is spontaneously consumed to create particles and antiparticles on the quantum level, which are then attracted to each other and annihilated releasing the energy that was consumed. Therefore, even in a vacuum devoid of air molecules, there will still always be these odd interactions occurring.
@JapanForSale There's nothing special about the materials, as there is almost no difference between 1 nPa and, let's say, 1 kPa vacuum in terms of structural integrity. The only thing one have to consider is the pressure difference (not the ratio) between the inside and the outside, which in both cases is about 100 kPa. The material needs to be impermeable and cannot release any gases. In most cases plain stainless steel (like 316) with copper seals is enough. Check 'Ultra-high_vacuum' on wiki.
OK, so here're 2 things: a question, and then an observation.
Q: You talked a little bit about the stainless steel vacuum chambers, and the need to evaporate the water on the surfaces. But what kind of materiel is needed to withstand that kind of less pressure inside? What techniques (construction, treatment, etc.) are needed to create something "vacuum rated"?
O: Even physicists enjoy the simple act of smacking something into something else. ;) Shows you're not just about cold hard facts, eh?
@Moriarty2112
I think Harris' general topics of scientific skepticism and questioning beliefs are valid, in fact I strongly encourage them, however I think (from the little I have read on him) that most of his arguments are based in opposition towards christian fundamentalism, rather than "intellectual christian views".
Before I comment on your latter topic, what do you mean by "key issue"? Do you mean belief in God without proof?
@Moriarty2112 Clever. Though my comment was an exaggeration, a book should never be burned, I still hold my extreme discust towards that book. Not for preaching a differing view than my own, but for doing so in such a disrespectful way. Richard Dawkins has said that atheists must attack and destroy religion. Hypocritical, it is not? Atheists are always saying "Dont force your views/religion on me", but he wants to destroy religion. I have zero respect for that man and any of his works.
@Moriarty2112
I see, well thanks for clarifying. Part of the reason I brought it up was because I wanted to be sure that I hadn't gotten the wrong end of the stick. I imagine it must be hard to tailor your videos so that lay people can follow them without making it too simplistic for the more educated.
Perhaps you should consider doing an "advanced" series? That way you could include references to the simpler videos for those who are still new to it all. A Q&A feature could be fun too! :)
I'm quibbling over semantics though, it's not important I'm just feeding my inner elitist. :) At the end of the day, more detail is always preferable to less. I just wanted to draw attention to the crucial difference between saying "suction is the same as blowing" and "it's *not* suction, it's blowing". It sets up a false dichotomy that detracts from the true meaning of the word, and I'm of the belief that any misinformation must be corrected however harmless to preserve the integrity of truth.
@Moriarty2112
"the idea that it is air pushing, rather than the vacuum somehow "pulling","
But when you're talking about a pressure differential - aren't those two definitions exactly the same thing? The low pressure in the vaccuum intrinsically *is* the higher pressure outside the vaccuum. You can't have a differential without both sides of the equation being defining elements.
Don't get me wrong I don't think you're wrong- just that you're trying to account for a problem that isn't there.
It's fashionable among academics to point out that things which are being sucked into something are "actually being pushed" in the same way that everyone thinks they are clever for knowing that "tomatoes are actually fruit". But in my opinion, until there is a new definition for suction, the word stands as a perfectly acceptible term. If everything that the word suction is used for can be defined the same way, then that's what the word means.
Therefore, saying "it's not suction" is a misnomer.
@Itslvle But establishing a low pressure area to produce the lack in some direction of the otherwise present pushes within a higher pressure region and thus a flow of material just is what "sucking" has always meant in physical contexts. If not, give an example use of the word "sucking" that doesn't mean that (excluding derogatory meanings). A prototypical example of sucking is using a straw; that is the process in play there. Explaining the mechanics of something doesn't negate it's existence.
@Moriarty2112 You don't need further introduction Phillip, as we had some discussion on nanotech a year or something ago (Dave Grohl, stairway to heaven =) ). That detector is an amazing discovery due to it's simplicity! I read Giessibl's biography and the man did some amazing work on AFM. Last year I also was really astonished by the pentacene image produced by the IBM corp. I already knew the structures, but to see they really match the 'ball and stick' models is amazing!
Jaco
@jackassanti
Assuming both balls have the same size and the pressure ist the same, both balls will be pushed by the same force. Since force = mass x acceleration a higher mass pushed by equal force results in lower acceleration and thus lower speed.
Still both balls will have the same kinetic energy (neglecting friction). Work (form of energy) = force x distance. Force is the same, distance (length of tube), too. So the kinetic energy of both balls when leaving the barrel wil be the same.
1 pascal is the pressure of a chocolate bar (100g) on a 1 square meter surface (1N/m^2)
1 bar is 1 kg on 1 cm^2
i think science is more understandable if you can visualize things
you can't visualize atmospheric pressure. but you can imagine how much a kilogram feels when you're balancing it on your thumb
Professor Phil Moriarty discusses vacuum: how we may achieve it, why, and its use. Phil uses a light Ping-Pong ball, a long tube, a vacuum cleaner, a tape, and a knife to make a vacuum canon (Air Gun)! Suits high school Physics 1 students. The demonstration is dueable in any elementary physics lab. Recommended.
A) I don't even know what you're saying.
B) Law of conservation of information is not even a valid scientific law. It has no experimental or theoretical backing and was made by someone seeking to support intelligent design. You may be thinking of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that entropy is always increasing in a closed system.
@Patrickssj6 If you mean use less energy to acheve and keep the same pressure as on earth Problaly Yes
If you mean reach a yet lower pressure probable not. At these pressures your ''Pump'' is basicly hunting for molicules individually and would have just as hard a time no mater what the outside pressure was.
You are convinced to be a Christian, but you are in fact an atheist just like me. Want a proof? Here you go. I don't believe in Thor, and you don't believe in Thor either. I don't believe in Zeus, and you don't believe in Zeus either. I don't believe in Anubis, and you don't believe in Anubis either. We don't believe in those gods because we have no proof of their existence. And we don't have any proof of the existence of Yahweh either. So...
@bowwowvveevva It goes a bit into semantics, but what they mean is that the dust isn't pulled in, rather it's pushed by the air behind it that's rushing into the vacuum cleaner.
The way vacuums work is that normally air molecules are rushing in every direction, but say if you remove some of the air in a vacuum cleaner, more air molecules will end up moving in than out and so you'll get a rush of air. Air is always pushing, and vacuum is just a lack of that push.
@Patrickssj6 No, It would infact be less efficient. The vacuum cannon works by creating a very low pressure inside the tube compared to the relatively high pressure on the outside of the tube. When he cut the tube seal, air rushed in to equalize the large pressure differential and thats what forced the ball out at such a high speed. But on the moon, there is little to no air pressure. therefore, a large differential could not be created, so lowering the cannon's efficiency.
So if a particle has a mean free path of several thousand kilometers then wouldn't an area smaller than that be a perfect vacuum? If you have a jar in that really low pressure area then couldn't you just close that jar while there's no air particles in it and call it a perfect vacuum?
@noonebesides Like I said, it goes a bit into semantics. They just wanted to illustrate what is actually happening by using the word 'push'. The term "suck" is often though of as the vacuum pulling rather than air pushing by laymen so it can be useful to speak of pushing to get the idea across.
But you're of course right, that's what sucking is.
Awesome! That's a pretty powerful canon, does the pump have to be that big with this type of setup? Just a few days ago I was searching for videos about vacuum., would love to see more about it. Like what the difference is with a vacuum in space and vacuum chamber on earth, besides that there is gravity on earth?
@jackassanti Yeah it would... it probably wouldn't travel as fast as the ping pong ball did, but just assuming that the same amount of pressure is being applied to the golf ball as is the ping pong ball, would it be ridiculous to theorize that the golf ball would impart the same amount of energy on the can as the ping pong ball did?
Yes indead they wrote its a vacuum cannon ...
Btw.. Your mum said to me he found some handkerchief in the vacuum which you had to clean. I give you a hint: Use a vacuum cleaner
Don't tell me thats not funny for you, cause than you ay you're not funny :P
Atheism would be the belief that there is no god. (which comes with some other beliefs as to how the world works etc. i.e. the big bang.) I think what you are referring to is apatheism, which is the lack of (interest in) religion.
Is there no such thing as a perfect "vacuum" because of the Feynman diagram? In absence of matter photons will interact with another to produce matter? As in opposite to the anihilation of an electron and a positron?
Correct me if im wrong. I love this stuff.
@squalea The two balls would have the same kinetic energy coming out of the tube but the golf ball, being harder, would compress less on impact and impart more energy to the can. There may not be a significant difference though.
Fantastic.
Sixty Symbols should do a video on the Rydberg constant. Its been talked about a bit on science mags because of some discrepancy on the size of a proton, either of these subjects would make a great video.
End cap flying off before the ball arrives. Too much air in tube, being pressurized in front of oncoming ball? Needs more vacuum! Ball may also too small, and allowing too much air around itself. Maybe add a felt sabot to get a better fit.
@DeaconSwayne You could create a similar device for use on the moon by INCREASING the pressure on the inside of the tube though. Remember that higher pressure will always move to an area of lower pressure. Nature like to be in equilibrium when possible.
how come the ping pong ball does not get stuck in the piipe? To my knowledge, it contains air, and in a vacuum, the ball should expand, as the pressure inside is bigger than the vacuum in the pipe....
But it's not like there's a collection of beliefs all atheists follow.
Unless you're going to point out some specific reason I'm wrong, atheism is not consistent with the definition of the word.
@Moriarty2112
Yes I am interested in the cassimir effect and the ex nihilo implications, I'll send you that message when I get the time, I appreciate you offering to help me to understand. :) Thanks!
That is a matter of perspective. To someone who has that kind of humor it may just be the best joke of all time. I am sure you have plenty of jokes you find extremely funny that very few can laugh at.
re·li·gion
/riˈlijən/
Noun
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
For version two: make the front cap a flapper cap so that it doesn't fly off in front of the ball, but instead just flips up or down when the air starts to rush through
surely its not so much that we "forget" the force exerted by the atmosphere, but rather that its balanced by the air in our lungs which is at practically the same pressure?
Didn't the International Spacestation have some Equipment to do Experiments outside the Station itself? You wouldn't have a Pressure as low as on the Moon though...
Is anyone even gonna get over the fact that the ball actually landed in the trash?!
I know I can't o.O
Nahh man it was set up,, they Prolly measured and calculated where to place the vacuum in order to get it in the trashcan,, it'd be more impressive if they would've gotten by absolute luck,
Yes.
@sixtysymbols for how long at 150degrees are you baking out materials?
we have resorted to baking out, in a rough vacuum to let the various objects outgas.
I'm perfectly capable of recognising humour, and I ceratinly recognised your comment as an attempted joke. I just didn't think it was a very good one.
When the air inside the pipe was being sucked... why doesn't the ping pong ball explode?... coz the pressure inside the ball should be very high,,,
@DeaconSwayne I should have been more precise: I meant the other machine that creates a vacuum at nano pascal. Would that machine be more efficient on the moon / space?
i use vacum cups to lift glass sheets at work. its kinda freaky how the air pushes glass and rubber cup together creating so musch friction.
The second generation should have a hinge on the cap so only the ball does the damage. Assuming the hinge is strong enough to bear the force :P
No, atheism is the refusal to accept the CLAIM that a god exists, it says NOTHING about whether a god does or doesn't exist - that would be gnosticism/agnosticism.
@lexichronicle2 Proof comes before belief, not after. Atheism is not a religion, but instead a lack thereof, and therefore has no dogma.
I thought the ball would burst. It’s air air filled.
Strong ball
It looks like the cap does quite a bit of damage on its own.Have you tried using a film(Mylar or similar) for the front cap?
@BinaryEggRoll That line of logic would explain the expansion of the universe, maybe "nothing" is what surrounds the universe.
funny how they're allowed to do these experiments in the classroom, if I did it at high school I'd be kicked out.
Can the humanity mae some kind of propulsion system (engine) from this for some space craft? up in the vacuum ??
'Atheism, as we know it..'
Then you don't 'know it', try researching it..but don't ask a theist as they are mired in dogma.
What if you take the same vacuum machine and put it on the moon or in space...would it be significantly more efficient?
I like how the pictures like on 0:31 look similar to those shady, out of focus, alien abduction pictures. :-).
heard the rumors about Blaise Pascal? he went to rehab when he got famous, he just couldnt handle the pressure
Awesome, but may i ask what equipment we see there. It reminds me of some really big AFM or XPS/UPS setups .
@DeaconSwayne Yah well the plastic cap wouldn't hold then.. and you'd have to pucture the seal at the point of exit..
@comface : Could you elucidate that? I read the God Delusion (LOVED IT!) back in 2007 and don't see the reference.
The ball is not very flexible, so it won't expand. (If the pressure went too low, it would just explode)
You lost me at '' dust isn't sucked into a vacuum cleaner ''.............
I still love this though :D
I don't think you know the meaning of 'Pulverize'. That effect on can would be 'crushed' at best.
The guys that do Sixty Symbols are such geeks. I totally love them all, cos i'm one too :D hahaha
I love my dad so I'm not asking for anything there, but Dr. Moriarty would be the best uncle ever.
Actually most of the "pulverizing" seemed to come from the plastic cap, but eh.. Whatcha gonna do.
What are the equations used to calculate the pressure in the barrel and the force the ball has?
Phils' vacuum tube currently filling in part-time on university's basketball roster ...
Can you post the video of the second-gen gun? (Thumbs up this comment so he remembers.)
Please research the origin of the word religion, it is not about godly being per se.
Awesome stuff, now put some BB's into the tube and aim it at some ballistics gel! :)
I agree, but the organisation or God is what differentiates belief from religion.
I guess the second ping pong ball didn't end up in the bin :P
This guy's gonna be contracted by the military to design vacuum rifles... XD
Actualy, part of the damage was done by the plastic cover first.
i wonder, what would happen if they tried to vacuumate moon "air"
@shogoonn Thanks for laying down the knowledge on my humbled self.
it looked to me that the lid hit the coke can first and moved it alot
Post a video where you actually destroy the pop can. Second gen.
Since the barking dog is, technically, gas flying through a tube at a somewhat fast speed, could it be made into a cannon?
Can someone tell me what the vacuum is in the LHC? Cheers.
the God delusion is a despicable book that should be burned
shit I literally blinked and missed the second cannon shot
That proves the incredible strenght of pong-pong balls ;-)
Just because you call it that doesn't make it a good one.
Why is it not possible to have a perfect vakuum? Because even if it's not that great u will have some spaces where there are no molecules. In those you could put a compressed plastic bag and pull it big in order to even make those areas bigger.