The discussion revolves around measuring the energy released from a firecracker explosion. One proposed method involves using a pendulum to measure the change in height after the explosion, applying concepts like gravitational potential energy and momentum conservation. However, concerns are raised about potential errors in this method due to energy losses. A more accurate approach suggested is to conduct the experiment in a calorimeter, which would yield more reliable results. Utilizing standard enthalpy tables is also recommended for approximating the energy release.
#1
Sack Boy
2
0
Let's say the standard size firecracker if there is a standard.
What about doing an experiment? Make a pendulum with a little cup on the end and set the firecracker in their and try to focus the explosion so it will rotate the pendulum ,
Then measure the change in height of the pendulum . mgh is the gravitational potential energy. Ballistic pendulum idea or do something with momentum conservation.
#3
spinnaz
13
0
cragar said:
and try to focus the explosion
Nope. Too many losses, would introduce errors on the order of 50% or more.
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
i want to just test a linear generator with galvanometer , the magnet is N28 and the wire (Cu) is of 0.6mm thikness and 10m long , but galvanometer dont show anthing ,
The core is PLA material (3d printed)
The magnet size if 28mm * 10mm * 5mm
If the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, and all possible outcomes are realized in some branch of the multiverse, does that invalidate the concept of scientific inquiry? If knowledge is merely a description of one particular branch of reality, does it have any inherent value?