« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »
Science Friday, Suze-style
A few days from now, I will post some expository links. Until then, the identity of this image is left as an exercise for the reader. Accuracy and humor will have equal merit in the comments.
Current scientific endeavors have imposed infrequent blogging and post brevity. Brevity has its merits, though - being the soul of wit or lingerie, depending on who you ask.
Science Friday, Suze-style is a continuation from last week.
Here is a compilation of the data:
Ripley's Believe It Or Not, and more specifically a printed version from the seventies or earlier, reported the ratio for popped to unpopped popcorn as 27:1. When I tried the experiment using a 4.5 quart pot, oil, good popcorn and a gas flame, I measured the ratio as 26:1.
Note that experiments trumped theory in approximating the published value. I was surprised by the standard deviation for the four measurements (or three, if Dorothy's second experiment is properly considered confirmatory). The variation in the ratio most likely derives from both the input and protocol.
While the data set is a little small to be able to say much, anecdotal evidence suggests that the Whirley-Pop produces exceptionally fluffy popcorn. First, the largest measured value was achieved with a Whirley-Pop. Second, the largest estimate was made by a theorist who uses her Whiley-Pop exclusively. Assuming that rigorous testing would bear out the anecdotal evidence, what features of the Whirley-Pop make it so prodigious?
Now that you mention it ...
Jenn C. asked, "So, how would you define the person who says "Someone must have figured this out already, I'll go look it up?"
Jenn C. continues, "And what is the person who wants to define the parameters of the experiment (how are you popping, what variety of corn are you using, what is the acceptable number of unpopped kernels in your sample size) before entering the discussion (other than annoying)?"
Across the street from me, there's a serious sunflower colony. Here's a sampling.
Many phases of the life cycle are captured in this shot. When I charged across the street to snap pictures, lightly hidden goldfinches scattered in response, and I missed my chance to capture their image. The bee, in the center of the upper flower, continued happily minding its work.
The flowers had a little chat with me, and urged me to convey this message to Dorothy:
"It's well known that Suzanne has an uneven temperament, which translates into social lapses. We, the sunflowers, are more astute. We would like to wish you and your honey (bee humor) a hale and hearty Happy Anniversary."
I love talking plants.
While fooling around with Sheep One from Sheep Shop Yarns, I've concluded that designing a children's sweater will be the best use of my brightly colored stash. Requiring two-color purling may limit the appeal of such a pattern.
Back to the needles, this time using US9.
Specs
US9 needles, Crystal Palace circulars
knit back and forth in stockinette
swatch hand-washed, flattened, pinned, dried, unpinned
gauge then measured
15.5 stitches over 4 inches
22 rows over 4 inches
aspect ratio (rows/stitches)
swatch weight
swatch area
area covered per skein
Next: Repeat with US8 needles to get the gauge to fall within the recommended range of 4.0 to 4.5 stitches per inch.
When doing stranded knitting with US8 needles (see below), I achieved the tight end of the gauge with the coarser stranding pattern. The finer stranded pattern gave an even finer gauge, suggesting that the stranding itself is tightening gauge. "So why the attempt with US9s?" you might ask. It's straightforward: the US9s were within reach. The only way to counter this laziness is to industriously record a complete set of data (see above).
Speaking of data, the meeting of International Society for Edible Experiments is postponed until Science Friday.
Years ago, I came across the volume ratio of popped to unpopped popcorn. Recently, I acquired some data in rough support of the published data.
For Science Friday, Suze-style, I ask you to consider whether you are a theorist or an empiricist in addressing this question:
What is the fold increase in volume when you go from this:
to this? (NB: Scale is not consistent.)
The protocol I used for taking my data was to pop two tablespoons (one fluid ounce) of popcorn using a Calphalon pan, corn oil, and gas flame. After popping, I measured to volume by dumping it into a measuring cup, and took what I though to be a fair reading. (I concede that popcorn does not exactly form a meniscus.) The value I measured was within four percent of the published value.
Theorists: please post your considered estimate.
Empiricists: please try your hand at the experiment, using any reasonable protocol, and post your data.
Data collation will be presented Tuesday at an ad hoc meeting of International Society for Edible Experiments.
I believe in the power of the swatch. Recently, I explored some of the charms of Sheep One from Sheep Shop Yarns:
The construction of the swatch is Zilboorgian, and was made on a circular US8, 24 inch needle (note to self: blue metal). I found the yarn heavenly for stranded knitting. The stitch pattern used for three of the blocks resulted in a gauge of 18 stitches per four inches. The odd panel out resulted in a gauge of 19 stitches per four inches, which is outside of the range suggested on the label, and more to the point looked and felt too tight. I suspect a US9 needle would solve that problem. The dominant pattern suggests children's clothing, while the other seems suitable for adult wear. Mixing the bright colors using fine gradations seems to tame them a bit. For all of the stranded knitting, I purled in two colors. I suspect that I will never steek anything because two-color purling sits just fine with me. In finer yarn it may not, but I'll drive off that bridge when I come to it.
With research heating up, I've been missing quite a bit lately. This past Saturday, I missed a Dinner Circle as well as an unofficial Stitch and Pitch at Fenway. Thursday, I missed joining my family for a concert at Chandler Pond. Wednesday, I missed the Brookline stitch and twitch. Tuesday, I missed National Night Out at the Franklin Park Zoo, and in particular seeing my husband get an award for civic activism:
Note that Mayor Menino and PeachPit will need to work just a little harder at coordinating their colors for future events.
Blog commenting is way down, since my ancient laptop is glacially slow. I've got a new Mac Mini right here next to my OED, but I've lacked the time to install it. Blog reading is similarly down. Knitting has happened, but much of it on the bus. Any realistic person would declare a blog break. Realism, though, must get in line and wait with everything else.
Despite the craziness, I will still be organizing another knit brunch at Athan's for next weekend. Rather than post event specifics here, I will email non-Ravelers instead. Gimme a shout if you would like to be on that mailing list.
It's been another crazy week of late nights and good experiments. For Science Friday, Suze-style, I will point you to a pair of older posts. Mindbending involves real science. The First Leg reflects early blog evidence of a favorite obsession.
Back to the Monty Hall problem. The short answer is that your chance of getting the car is twice as good if you switch.
Here's why. At the outset, the chance of the car being behind any particular door is one third (roughly 0.333). You choose Door Number One. The probability that you have chosen the car is 0.333, and the probability that you did not is 0.666. This remains true no matter what happens. Monty now shows you a goat behind Door Number Two. The car still has a chance of 0.666 of being behind one of the doors that you did not choose. Now that you know Door Number Two concealed a goat, the probability of Door Number Three concealing the car is 0.666.
Recent Comments