PDA

View Full Version : Use Your Microwave To Measure The Speed Of Light

SurferJoe46
01-05-2010, 08:02 AM
Goody! I like DIY Nuclear Physics! (http://io9.com/5526055/use-your-microwave-to-measure-the-speed-of-light)

............and you get to eat the results and any unfortunate mistakes too!

Next Week, students::: How To Estimate The Value Of Planck's Constant using a fork, a jar of strawberry preserves, a wooden spatula and some left-over U-235

'Till then - keep sending those cards and letters!

Terry Porritt
01-05-2010, 09:24 AM
Not a bad effort, but being a pedantic spoil sport, it comes about 27 years too late, as in 1983 the speed of light was fixed at 2999792458km/sec for purposes of defing the metre.

Ergo, what the experiment is doing is measuring the wavelength, but that doesn't sound as exotic ;)

R2x1
01-05-2010, 05:58 PM
Anything measured in metric stuff is probably not worth measuring anyway. Metrication is a sop to the innumerates that inhabit Parliament and form mental discontinuities at anything with a base bigger than 10. This shows in their complete confusion at rotation measured in multiples of 360, as witness they can't get round to anything useful. Time comes in blocks of 60 so the MPs lay waste to it. Depths come in units of 6, so the poli's can't fathom anything to any great depth.

WalOne
01-05-2010, 06:05 PM
Depths come in units of 6, so the poli's can't fathom anything to any great depth.

"fathom" = :lol:

Most poli's are out of their depth anyway ....

TideMan
02-05-2010, 05:02 PM
Back in the mid-60's when decimalisation was being discussed, my computer science teacher at U of C, Bruce Moon, flew to Wgton to try and persuade Rob Muldoon that a duodecimal system (base 12) made more sense than a decimal system.
10 has factors of 2 and 5.
12 has factors of 2 and 3, which can be combined as 2x6 or 3x4
Things are packed in dozens because 3x4 is more efficient than 2x5.
The only downside is that we'd have to invent new symbols for ten and eleven (twelve would be 10).
He didn't win.

Jayess64
03-05-2010, 11:07 PM
Back in the mid-60's when decimalisation was being discussed, my computer science teacher at U of C, Bruce Moon, flew to Wgton to try and persuade Rob Muldoon that a duodecimal system (base 12) made more sense than a decimal system.
10 has factors of 2 and 5.
12 has factors of 2 and 3, which can be combined as 2x6 or 3x4
Things are packed in dozens because 3x4 is more efficient than 2x5.
The only downside is that we'd have to invent new symbols for ten and eleven (twelve would be 10).
He didn't win.

But wouldn't we have to grow two more fingers?