Wilson,+Bradley

Mentos and Diet Coke "Geyser" 8/28/2010 I found this article quite fascinating because of how in depth the author goes with this phenomenon. He (Bob Becker) mentions the insight on how the soda bottles are made with higher levels of CO2 and the reasons of why soda bottles are constructed the way they are, to prevent "nucleation sites". Also, I enjoyed the analysis on the Mentos mint and how its surface is the difference that makes the explosion occur. Who would have guessed that something as slightly different as a small bump would cause that large of a reaction when dumped in Diet Coke? When reading this, I wondered why the company that produces Mentos decided to construct the surface of the fruit and sugar-free Mentos differently then the mint ones. You'd think the candy would be made in the same fashion. However, it apparently does not appear that way. Another thing I wondered was that the author of this article always mentioned Diet Coke. What would happen if you did this with the Classic, Cherry, Cherry Vanilla, Caffeine Free, or Coke Zero brands? Would the same results occur? Another idea would be to broaden the types of soda that would be used by using not only Pepsi and generic brands, but also use lemon-lime soda, root beer, orange soda and other types of soda these companies offer. The results would be incredible. Lastly, I pondered how Becker came up with the information he did when he made a note that after reading some of those 305,000 websites, he got basically nothing. That either means he has a very high level of thinking or guessed on most of this information. Personally, I think he made conclusions of what he thought was happening so I think most of his information was correct. He does write for a magazine also, so he'll have to be trusted. For my final words, all I have to say is that this article interested me enough to make me run off and possibly do my own science experiment with something like this, but maybe for a later time.

Brad, Outstanding post! Good writing and interesting insights. 5 huge nucleation site stars!!! MW

Redefing the Kilogram 9/2/2010 Although I don't persomally view this very exciting nor do I care much about it, I find a lot of topics in this article very interesting and intriguing. For one, I have to give a great amount of respect for those people who actually care about it. I mean, to make something that perfect, a lot of dedication is needed, more then I would ever have in my life. Another statement that I was very happy to see was that Avogadro's would make learning the mole simpler. I'm always for simpler learning and that's kind of the only reason I would want this to change, but I absolutely do not. This leads to my interesting MVP statement. I find the debate a little... there's not really a word that describes my emotions towards this. However, I will say this. Who cares if the kilogram may be barely off now. At one point a perfect kilogram was built. How could somebody not be proud to say "Hey, We built an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT kilogram. There's nothing you can do about it. I don't care how sealed it is or how protected it is, energy will either be lost or gained no matter what.There's no need for a redefinition. Once you state a scientific fact correct, it will be correct until enough evidence is shown to prove it wrong, which I believe there is not in this case. If this goes through, I will be utterly disappointed with the committees that approve the change. Keep the kilogram!

Brad, Wow! A power-packed post! I'm thinking of getting a "Save the Kilogram" bumper sticker now! :) Seriously good job - it is amazing how important this is. Many tables and "constants" would have to be reevaluated if we ignore the lost mass. 5 stars. MW

Crude Oil I found this video quite interesting and I learned a lot of information about crude oil. For one, I found out that the way oil companies distilled oil was quite complicated in my opinion. There will eventually be an easier way to do this, or there will be in the near future. Another thing I learned is that the oil industry used this method and it was cool how this related to something in real life. Usually, when they show something like this, it relates to nothing in real life. Well, this one did so I was happy. The most important or MVP statement was that the hooter the oil, the farther down it goes in the tube. It’s like density. Lower densities go down lower in the container then higher densities. I enjoyed how it related to class.

Brad, I think you mean hotter not hooter :). Anyway you got the basic gist of the movie. I doubt that a new process for separating crude oil is on the horizon but it's an idea! 5 stars. MW

Unlike the child in this article, I never was caught by a motion detector. However, I previously did know some information about them and learned some more by reading this article. First off, I heard about how some detectors use temperatures to catch motion. Since, humans are warm-blooded creatures, they aren't very difficult to catch with that sensor. Also, I knew that a lot of ping pong balls would not do as much damage as a steel ball because ping pong balls hit my windows all the time in my basement and do not leave a scratch. Unfortunately, a steel ball would although I have never tried it nor plan to. Lastly, I learned a while back that in 1921, Albert Einstein won a Nobel Peace Prize in physics for the theory of relativity when I did a report on him. What I got out of the article was that the electons are the one that cause the detector to go off when it goes on certain surfaces. Another idea I got was that Heinrich Hertz and his discovery about how different light frequencies cause different reactions to electrons. Lower frequencies cause less movement while higher frequencies cause the electrons to go crazy. Finally, I learned that electrons do not always cause this, but in some situations, particles called photons causes different intensities of electricity wheih in the end causes the detector to go off. This is to the disatisfaction of the teenager.

Brad, Interesting post - and sort of funny! :) BTW Einstein did not win the Nobel PEACE prize. He did win the Nobel prize in Physics. 5 stars. MW

Abstract 10-21-2010 = Elements come from a star explosion which causes a supernova that forms an interstellar cloud of gas and dust that flows into planets making elements. =

Brad, OK. 5 stars. MW

Sugar : An Unusal Explosive

There were many things that I found interesting in this article but here are three. First off, I found it interesting how the author used an apple browning to relate to an explosion of sugar.That hellped me understand how the explosion worked on the surface and only on it until it id divided or cut. That causes the other particles on the underneath surface to then start to brown. The same happens to the molecules of air creating dust, thus creating the combustion. Now, I can sort of have a visual of what that the sugar looks like as the molecules push, break it down, make dust, and then combust. Another thing I found interesting was that any factory that works directly with sugar has a risk of exploding. Through all of the grinding and milling, any particle could be sent up in the air, meet a spark, and cause a devastating explosion. This has convinced me to never work at a sugar plant because of the possible risk of death, so it was a nice thing to learn. My MVP (I do not know if we needed one so here it is just in case) interesting statement was that people and companies are not too concerned but yet the government is. Hello; the place they are working at could explode at anytime and even the government is unable to prevent that with 100% guarantee. It will always be a hazard. There is no way around that. To reiterate, I would never want to work in a sugar factory or wood workshop with my safety up in the air. Should they not be just a little concerned about that? Dust could appear easily in those places and could be met with a spark just as easily causing something to be scared about. Now they have seen what could happen so they should not feel absolutely secure. It only makes sense.

Brad, OK but your connections to our class are a little cryptic. 5 stars. MW

Helium Balloon 12-21-10

This article helped clear some of the unclear spots that I had about pressure in gases. My first VIP is that buoyant forces, or the more powerful forces that make something like a balloon go high up into the air, affect more then just one object, but everything around it, even if their density is a smaller amount then the air. This is important to know so I do not think that these forces only affect some objects but not others creating confusion and questions. My second VIP is that the higher above sea level the air is, the less pressure there is from the more spread out molecules and thinner air. This is important and relevant in or class because we had a problem like this in our homework last night. It could also be helpful in the future for realizing why air in sea level is so different from the air in atmosphere. Now I also know that all air is not the same. It all depends where the air is whether it is high or low. My third VIP and MVP is that units of force do not include grams. Grams relate to weight and not air pressure. Also, it explains why there are new measuring units that have to be learned and now know the importance of learning them and what they are. At the end of an answer, I now know it is incorrect if I have grams as a label for my final answer.

Brad, Yes grams is actually a unit of mass - not weight. So we should more correctly be saying that we are "massing" not "weighing" objects. Good post! 5 stars. MW