Category: 
March 21, 2008Pretty simple actually.
You can use chocolate as in this videos, a plate of mashed potatoes, cheese, marshmallows, or even twizzler sticks will do just fine.
Time for experiment:
About 10 minutes (with a calculator. 15 without one. Could be a lot more if you forgot your fifth grade math).
1. Examine the microwave, the rear surface as well as inside the door, looking for a label stating the frequency. If there is no label containing this value, the majority of microwave ovens operate at 2.45 gigahertz.
2. If the microwave has a rotating turn table remove or disable it.
3. Remove the packaging from the chocolate and place on top of a piece of paper towel on a plate
4. Place the plate with the paper towel and the chocolate in the microwave, so that the chocolate is positioned with the longest sides facing the longest sides of the microwave.
5. Heat the chocolate in the microwave until it barely begins to melt, pausing the oven to check occasionally (the time will vary with the oven, from 20 seconds to 90 seconds)
6. Once the chocolate has begun to melt remove it from the microwave, probe the surface for a pattern of hot melted spots, about the dimensions of a dime.
7. Use toothpicks to mark the hotspots, placing them in the center of the hotspots.
8. Measure the distance between the toothpicks, recording the data.
Source Null Hypothesis and/via Smarter than that and Everything2
Next Friday, how to measure radius of the earth
Horaayy..there are 4 comment(s) for me so far ;)
[…] Qualquer um pode fazer. O artigo original está no blog Talk Like a Pysicist. […]
Great. For me it is also demonstration how physics should be studied. Today’s huge multinational projects prevent open minded independent investigations. And they are obviously lead to nothing. For example, to reach Plank scale, the energy contained in bucket of water is enough. Perhaps the optical pulse compression will do a job.
By the way, here you may see everything you want to know about physics but was afraid to ask:
1)after all, the result is certainly correct and was obtained in extremely simple (sophisticated) way;
2)wishful thinking – the measurement was not adequate to explanation, in order to obtain the correct result she shifted the rod intentionally (falsified the measurement);
3)the result is excluded axiomatically (superluminal);
4)the original explanation is wrong since melting should occur at peaks of intensity and not at knots.
I call all that sexy physics. See also: http://4.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/2/5/collegehumor.5b8042f283aa6f7007d91c25fe4a99a6.jpg
Sunny Kalara, let me explain my last sentence. I see on her back math of two problems that I am working now: 1) theory of information (J.von Neumann/A.Zeilinger “eigenschaften”); 2) relativistic QM.