Hobbyist wrote:
Fact checker wrote:http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-gameFalse.
Thanks for the link which proves my point.
"We are not commenting at this time," said Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of communications.
I know this is kinda weird but all this talk has me wondering. Do all these laws of physics apply to human balls too so that in the cold they really do shrink ?
Mundus Vult wrote:
Hey "real scientist", you know that actual, real scientists have tested this in the exact same conditions as the AFC Championship and found the PSI to drop an average of 1.8 PSI? The temperature accounted for 1.1 PSI and the wet conditions another .7 PSI.
This confirms the statements released by MIT and Boston College.
http://www.headsmartlabs.com/HeadSmart Labs found that on average the footballs dropped 1.1 PSI from the 25 degree temperature change alone. The Lab also found that when the leather was wet, the ball dropped an additional 0.7 PSI. In combination, it was found that on average the footballs lost 1.8 PSI with a max of 1.95 PSI from exposure to game day elements.
Mundus, you weaken your argument with the internet tough guy schtick. Betting salaries? Calling people a$$clowns? Even though you have valid points to make, no one wants to deal with this.
As someone pointed out in another thread, my calculations were wrong. PV=nRT requires absolute pressure be used, and I only used gauge pressure. The correct calculation says the balls needed to start at 90 F in order to lose 2 psi at 50 F. Or start at 70 F and end at 30 F. My mistake.
Note that this still requires the balls to have started at an unusually high temperature, or cooled to an unusually low temp, assuming no change in volume.
The link you provided gives interesting results, but their deviation from predicted values needs to be explained. For example, if there is a change in volume, it should be measurable.
Headsmart also fails to take internal temperature for the start and end psi measurements, and that has to be measured for any data to be valid.
One other issue with these demonstrations is they are using brand new balls. The balls used by the Pats were prepped. Soaked, scrubbed, etc. If a new football expands when soaked, why assume a pre-soaked ball would do the same thing?
neanderthal dream wrote:
Mundus, you weaken your argument with the internet tough guy schtick. Betting salaries? Calling people a$$clowns? Even though you have valid points to make, no one wants to deal with this.
I am not a tough guy.
My point is that folks with far more power in this debate than you and I are out in the media flinging accusations. It is like dropping a big, silent deadly fart in the room and then sneaking out the back door when you realize that, more likely than not, the Patriots didn't cheat.
For reasons that are very personal, this stuff really bothers me.
the change was 1 lb/in^2, not 2
Mundus Vult wrote:
neanderthal dream wrote:Mundus, you weaken your argument with the internet tough guy schtick. Betting salaries? Calling people a$$clowns? Even though you have valid points to make, no one wants to deal with this.
I am not a tough guy.
My point is that folks with far more power in this debate than you and I are out in the media flinging accusations. It is like dropping a big, silent deadly fart in the room and then sneaking out the back door when you realize that, more likely than not, the Patriots didn't cheat.
For reasons that are very personal, this stuff really bothers me.
Okay fair enough. I don't know you or what you're like in person. Just wanted you to know how it comes across online.
Sorry. I thought having an incident in the past qualified as history. My bad. Dumbas$.
Try to keep up wrote:
The Pats' "history" of cheating under Belichick contains exactly one documented incident.
It seems appropriate that you signed your post "Dumbas$".
When people sign a post, they don't put a period after their signature. Dumbas$.
Recognizer of brilliance wrote:
It seems appropriate that you signed your post "Dumbas$".
Recognizer of brilliance wrote:
It seems appropriate that you signed your post "Dumbas$".
In general they also don't hide behind other people's handles. Of course, there are always those such as yourself who are allergic to even the smallest doses of personal integrity.
Chemical Ali wrote:
neanderthal dream wrote:Check the math if you like.
PV = nRT
V, n and R are constant
so P1/T1 = P2/T2
T2 = P2/(P1/T1)
P can be in any unit of measure, but T has to be in K.
The ideal gas law is not particularly accurate as temps drop and pressure increases.
Wrong formula. You need to use the combined gas law.
P1*V1/T1 = P2*V2/T2
Here are the calculations done the old-fashioned way, using the combined gas law.
68F = 293.1
51F = 283.7
12.5*258.5/293.1 = 11.024
x*258.5/283.7 = 11.024
x = 11.024*283.7/258.5 = 12.098psi =expected P due to temperature change
12.5-12.1 = 0.4psi expected deflation
Actual deflation = 2.0psi
Or if the math thingy is too much, here's a cheat:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-physics-of-tom-bradys-balls.html#.VMgHpy6LWApSomeone pointed out that the above uses the wrong pressure. It should be atmospheric + gauge = absolute pressure.
Also the V's cancel so you end up with what he had, but I am sure you realize that. Here is a good write up:
get used to it.. wrote:
When people sign a post, they don't put a period after their signature. Dumbas$.
Recognizer of brilliance wrote:It seems appropriate that you signed your post "Dumbas$".
I think we can all agree that someone who spells 'Dumbass' as 'Dumbas$' would likely put a period after their signature.
One football lost 2 PSI, the others only 1 PSI.
did u no wrote:
The Ideal Gas Law os only applicable in ideal conditions.
No dummy, ideal refers to a hypothetical gas, it has nothing to do with ideal conditions.
An ideal gas is not hypothetical.