The Ideal Gas Law os only applicable in ideal conditions.
The Ideal Gas Law os only applicable in ideal conditions.
did u no wrote:
The Ideal Gas Law os only applicable in ideal conditions.
Yes but it gives a good approximation in the ranges we're talking about.
Actually it doesn't, given the wide range of potential temperatures and pressures.
To be clear, I think it is fair, but not good.
Chemical Ali wrote:
Actually it doesn't, given the wide range of potential temperatures and pressures.
We're talking about a 16% change in pressure, the error in the temperature calculation isn't going to be huge. But it all depends on your definition of "good." Even if it were +/-30 F, it's enough to show conclusively that temperature change alone isn't enough to account for the pressure difference. That's good enough.
neanderthal dream wrote:
I'm pretty sure... wrote:V is not a constant. If you put a balloon in the freezer it will shrink.
But a football is not a balloon. It is much more rigid and will hold its shape better. 10 psi is a long ways from being flat, so constant V is a good assumption.
False. You have failed to consider that it was pouring rain during the game. Leather expands as it absorbs water thereby increasing the volume of the ball.
The lengths that Pats fans go to try to explain this thing away......
Tell you what, PV=nRT is a simple equation, I'll let you figure out how much a football would have to expand to account for a 16% drop in pressure. But I'll give you a hint: V is inversely proportional to P. So a 16% drop in P results in a ____% increase in V.
You really think the pig skin expands that much?
Neanderthal,
You care to put any money on this?
Belicheck answered the question in his press conference: their preparations of the ball created an artificially high PSI when the refs pumped up the balls to 12.5 PSI. Once the ball went out of climate control and reached equilibrium, the Patriots own internal tests showed the PSI dropped by 1.5 PSI. As well, their own internal test showed that their quarterbacks couldn't tell a difference in a 1 lb drop and couldn't reliably tell a difference in a 2 lb drop. You run those same test and if your results are different then I will pay you for all your expenses plus a fee of your salary for one year. If you lose, I will still pay your expenses but you pay my salary for a year.
By the way, this is what makes Beli's test believable: the Pats ran the test to make sure they were safe to do the exact same thing before the Superbowl. Belicheck clearly thought deflategate was a waste of his time. The tests were run so that he felt confident that their process was within the rules to use again before the Superbowl.
You guys are acting like this is a simple equation without an insane number of variables. This is a f'in animals bladder NOT a test tube. Each one acts different. You have no idea about how they are or aren't prepped.
Mundus
neanderthal dream wrote:
The lengths that Pats fans go to try to explain this thing away......
Tell you what, PV=nRT is a simple equation, I'll let you figure out how much a football would have to expand to account for a 16% drop in pressure. But I'll give you a hint: V is inversely proportional to P. So a 16% drop in P results in a ____% increase in V.
You really think the pig skin expands that much?
Since volume increases as the cube of the radius, you would need a radial increase of 2-3%. That's equivalent to at most a 0.1" increase in radius at the balls largest cross section.
So, yes, I believe the ball can easily expand that much.
I can hardly wait until press day this week, when some skank reporter chick asks Tom Brady if she can feel his balls. Guarantee it will happen.
neanderthal dream wrote:
If you think it's about the score difference, I'm sorry for you.
And if you think that I think it's about the score difference, I'm almost sorry for you.
Just let it go , don't be angry for nothing.
Angry4nothing wrote:
Second Half score : 45 vs 7
so 28 zip in the 2nd half with the "perfect" balls.
Just let it go!!
Dude...Did you even watch the game? Most of the points were off of turnovers, which were either taken directly back to the house or gave the Patriots possession well into enemy territory.
The Patriots scored twice off turnovers and neither were "taken directly back to the house". What game did you watch?
neanderthal dream wrote:
The lengths that Pats fans go to try to explain this thing away......
Tell you what, PV=nRT is a simple equation, I'll let you figure out how much a football would have to expand to account for a 16% drop in pressure. But I'll give you a hint: V is inversely proportional to P. So a 16% drop in P results in a ____% increase in V.
You really think the pig skin expands that much?
Do you not think using the ball hasn't any impact?
Time to cut out the BS. This has been blown so out of proportion.
Earlier in the season, Minnesota and Carolina were caught illegally heating up the footballs.
I bet that you didn't know this because no one cared. The media didn't go into an uproar. The league just issued warnings.
There needs to ONE single standard, not one for the Patriots and one for everyone else. If 2 other teams tampered with the ball and just got warnings and the story barely made a ripple in the media, then what the Patriots are suspected (remember there isn't any proof that they tampered with the footballs, just proof that the footballs were deflated) of doing merits the same treatment.
If we are so against cheating, where was the outcry when the Vikings and the Panthers cheated? It is time to admit this whole "scandal" isn't about cheating, it is about hatred toward the Patriots. Reality is if this happened to any other team, the story would have died in a day.
Angry4Nothing wrote:
neanderthal dream wrote:If you think it's about the score difference, I'm sorry for you.
And if you think that I think it's about the score difference, I'm almost sorry for you.
Just let it go , don't be angry for nothing.
Oh, see I was just going off what you actually wrote in your post, which only talked about score. It was pretty clear your message was all about the score.
6th grade scientist wrote:
Since volume increases as the cube of the radius, you would need a radial increase of 2-3%. That's equivalent to at most a 0.1" increase in radius at the balls largest cross section.
So, yes, I believe the ball can easily expand that much.
3 problems with this:
1) The first half of the game didn't see much rain.
2) The Colts balls were exposed to the same conditions and all passed a reinspection.
3) Modern balls have a polyurethane lining, not a pig's bladder. Try to explain how polyurethane expands in water....
no one does that... wrote:
Assuming that a ball is 12 square inches, wouldn't inflating it to 12.5 pounds per square inch make the ball 150 pounds? Pretty sure no team does this, so I'm not sure why NE is getting criticized.
Why is everyone ignoring this salient point?
Chemical Ali wrote:
Actually it doesn't, given the wide range of potential temperatures and pressures.
I found this article that found my calculations to be fairly accurate:
http://www.popsci.com/football-physics-and-science-deflategateBalls at room temp had to be cooled to -10 F to lose 2 psi.
Also, I found Van der Waals constants for air. a = 0.1358 m^6*Pa/mol^2, b = 3.64E-5*m^3/mol.
(P+a*N^2/V^2)(V-Nb) = NkbT
12.5 psi is over 86000 Pa. The P adjustment is miniscule. As is the V adjustment, considering b is on the order of 10^-5.
So yes, PV = nRT is a good estimate.
neanderthal dream wrote:
6th grade scientist wrote:Since volume increases as the cube of the radius, you would need a radial increase of 2-3%. That's equivalent to at most a 0.1" increase in radius at the balls largest cross section.
So, yes, I believe the ball can easily expand that much.
3 problems with this:
1) The first half of the game didn't see much rain.
2) The Colts balls were exposed to the same conditions and all passed a reinspection.
3) Modern balls have a polyurethane lining, not a pig's bladder. Try to explain how polyurethane expands in water....
1. It was pouring rain in the first half and during warm up.
2. I have seen no reports on the inspection of balls used by the Colts. Perhaps you can link us to a report that includes pre-game and post-game pressure measurements. Thanks.
3. The ball's outer shell is leather which expands when wet. The inner lining expands into the resulting larger volume due to the internal air pressure of the ball. This expansion is partialy the reason for the decrease in air pressure.
Your welcome.