I met a kid once who had a model train collection. He showed me pictures of ones he said his grandpa made for the Chicago Worlds Fair. I couldn't tell much by the pictures but they did look hand made and could be worth a lot to a collector. At the time I looked it up there were three known engines like his that fetched prices over $10,000 back then. He asked me what I thought he should do because he was fearful of getting ripped off. I couldn't tell him, but that was before I knew their background. He had 5 or 6 originals. I'm guessing that if he did put them on the market that might dilute the price. I never asked if he had proof his grandpa made them.
Apparently Timex has a colorful history, especially when it comes to Mickey Mouse. LOL Coins and stamps become expensive collectors items too for the same reasons. When errors were made and accidentally released to the wilds prices skyrocket. I need a new wrist band for my Timex. Those things are not always easy to find. It's sometimes cheaper, and certainly quicker, to just buy a new watch. I try to wait until the battery dies before I get a new one. I've tried replacing watch batteries with some success. But, once the seal is broken on the back they deteriorate quickly.
Vivaldi
Re: Vivaldi
The jewelry store who replaces the batteries in my watch places the watch inside a glass dome on a metal plate with hole in it, then turns on a vacuum pump. You can watch the gauge pointer drop and drop and drop.
He says this draws out all moisture from the air, and inside the watch, and helps the seal on the back cover to affix itself properly.
He never just lets the pressure out right away either, he lets it out only a little faster than it took to draw it down. He also watches the gauge real close to to see if it makes a jump or not. He never told us what that means, but I'm sure it must mean a bad seal either on the back or on the stem. But on a cheaper watch he probably figures it don't matter so keeps his yapper shut.
Now, when I owned a Seiko watch, after he replaced the battery and ran through the vacuum operation. Rather than giving the watch back to me right away, he took it in the back and took the back cover off again. Then he did something else that looked to me like he pulled the stem completely out. From that point I could not see what he was doing because he was hovering over the watch blocking my view of his workbench.
When he got done back there, he came back and put it back into the glass bell and ran it through the routine. As he let the pressure out, as it got back up to 0 zero he smiled and said, got it this time.
It's also the only time he ever charged me more than 5 bucks, this time it was 7 bucks, but I gave him a ten spot. I usually try to tip a little for the old guy, because there are not many like him around anymore.
By the way, he drives a 1992 Buick, so I don't think he's rich by any means, hi hi.
He says this draws out all moisture from the air, and inside the watch, and helps the seal on the back cover to affix itself properly.
He never just lets the pressure out right away either, he lets it out only a little faster than it took to draw it down. He also watches the gauge real close to to see if it makes a jump or not. He never told us what that means, but I'm sure it must mean a bad seal either on the back or on the stem. But on a cheaper watch he probably figures it don't matter so keeps his yapper shut.
Now, when I owned a Seiko watch, after he replaced the battery and ran through the vacuum operation. Rather than giving the watch back to me right away, he took it in the back and took the back cover off again. Then he did something else that looked to me like he pulled the stem completely out. From that point I could not see what he was doing because he was hovering over the watch blocking my view of his workbench.
When he got done back there, he came back and put it back into the glass bell and ran it through the routine. As he let the pressure out, as it got back up to 0 zero he smiled and said, got it this time.
It's also the only time he ever charged me more than 5 bucks, this time it was 7 bucks, but I gave him a ten spot. I usually try to tip a little for the old guy, because there are not many like him around anymore.
By the way, he drives a 1992 Buick, so I don't think he's rich by any means, hi hi.
Re: Vivaldi
Wife bought me a Citizens wrist watch many years ago. This was a Rolex knock off although they didn't advertise it as such. It had several dials and more than two hands for telling time. One of those hands was for a perpetual calendar. There were no written words. All the information you could get was in the dials and numbers on the face. It weighed a ton too. It had a gold finish on it and I'm sure it wasn't high quality. But it did look spiffy and worked pretty well too; until leap year. The perpetual calendar went out of whack on February 29th of whatever year it was. That irked me but wasn't enough to do anything about it. Eventually the battery died, and then it became a gigantic manhunt to find a jeweler who would work on a Citizens watch. They are rare, let me tell you.
Eventually I did locate a jeweler who said he would take it on but could not do the work himself. He knew of a place to send it and the work would be done by that third party. I agreed. When the watch came back some of the hands were obviously in the wrong place. I pointed this out to the jeweler and he sent it back to the third party. After several more weeks it came back almost fixed. The perpetual calendar was set for some date BC and could not be adjusted. He got on the phone this time and had a conversation with somebody (probably his wife). He came back and apologized offering to send it back one more time. The problem, so it seemed, is that the party doing the cleaning which involved some disassembly of the mechanisms was an English speaking person. His instructions for servicing the watch were in Chinese. He could not figure things out exactly. I didn't send it back a third time. I believe I bought a Timex after that.
So much for Rolex knock offs.
Eventually I did locate a jeweler who said he would take it on but could not do the work himself. He knew of a place to send it and the work would be done by that third party. I agreed. When the watch came back some of the hands were obviously in the wrong place. I pointed this out to the jeweler and he sent it back to the third party. After several more weeks it came back almost fixed. The perpetual calendar was set for some date BC and could not be adjusted. He got on the phone this time and had a conversation with somebody (probably his wife). He came back and apologized offering to send it back one more time. The problem, so it seemed, is that the party doing the cleaning which involved some disassembly of the mechanisms was an English speaking person. His instructions for servicing the watch were in Chinese. He could not figure things out exactly. I didn't send it back a third time. I believe I bought a Timex after that.
So much for Rolex knock offs.
Re: Vivaldi
That sounds almost like a watch I once had. It was big, thick, and clunky, given to me as a gift from my downtown boss.
I only wore it the remaining years I worked there, because I hated that thing with a passion.
Inside the main face it had three smaller dials, the top one was numbered 1 to 52, the bottom left 1 to 7, and the bottom right 1 to 31. Around the bezel it had two groups of numbers, 1 to 12, and 05 to 60 for seconds.
It had 4 hands on the main face, the bottom most hand was like the minute hand with a dot at the end, it would jump a whole digit at the end of each month. Then above that was the hour hand, the minute hand, and the seconds hand on top.
What made it such a pain is on months with only 30 days, and of course February, you had to reset the darn thing by pulling the stem all the way out and pushing it back in 3 clicks to set the date. You could only do so in forward or clockwise turns, so you had to go from 30 back to 1, which would cause the 1 to 52 to move to the right position, but it also messed up the 1 to 7 dial by a day, so you had to pull back out one click to set that one over.
After a few times of doing this, I never reset it at all, just let it read wrong, hi hi.
Oh, there was no battery in the watch, it was one of those self-winding types. But it did keep perfect time.
I did get taken big time on a watch I bought for the frau. I paid quite a bit for it from a jewelry store, and she did love it. She still does in fact. Even though now we know it was a cheap watch, which surprised us since it did come from a jewelry store. When we took it in to have the band repaired, the new jeweler we went to said he can fix it, but it would be cheaper to just buy a new one. He could order one identical for only like $19.95. I said it might be a cheap knock-off and this one is an original from a jewelry store, not a K-Mart special, hi hi.
We were not sure whether to believe this guy or not, so went elsewhere.
The little guy we go to now. He took a look at it and said give me a minute and I'll have you all fixed up. He repaired the band while we waiting, and I don't think this guy knows to charge anybody anything other than 5 bucks, hi hi.
After he fixed it, I asked him, does this watch look like an original or a knock-off?
He said, it is an original, and he knows of no company that makes a knock-off of it. Then he said lets see here, I know I still have the catalog for that model. He ducked in back again and came back out smiling. Here you go, and he plops the book right down in front of us. Right there on the page were two identical looking watches, both by the same maker.
The catalogue showed the suggested retail price $119.95 for the one on the left, and $29.95 for the one on the right.
I said Wow, they look the same to me, what's the difference?
He said the left one is real gemstones and the right one uses plastic for the gemstones.
Which one do we have? You have the one with real gemstones, he said. If they were plastic, they would have been all scratched up by now or some would have fell out.
After we were in the car, the frau said, you said you didn't pay over 100 bucks for this watch. I said I didn't, his book showed suggested retail. Remember the other jeweler said he could sell us one for $19.95. Oh Yeah!
I only wore it the remaining years I worked there, because I hated that thing with a passion.
Inside the main face it had three smaller dials, the top one was numbered 1 to 52, the bottom left 1 to 7, and the bottom right 1 to 31. Around the bezel it had two groups of numbers, 1 to 12, and 05 to 60 for seconds.
It had 4 hands on the main face, the bottom most hand was like the minute hand with a dot at the end, it would jump a whole digit at the end of each month. Then above that was the hour hand, the minute hand, and the seconds hand on top.
What made it such a pain is on months with only 30 days, and of course February, you had to reset the darn thing by pulling the stem all the way out and pushing it back in 3 clicks to set the date. You could only do so in forward or clockwise turns, so you had to go from 30 back to 1, which would cause the 1 to 52 to move to the right position, but it also messed up the 1 to 7 dial by a day, so you had to pull back out one click to set that one over.
After a few times of doing this, I never reset it at all, just let it read wrong, hi hi.
Oh, there was no battery in the watch, it was one of those self-winding types. But it did keep perfect time.
I did get taken big time on a watch I bought for the frau. I paid quite a bit for it from a jewelry store, and she did love it. She still does in fact. Even though now we know it was a cheap watch, which surprised us since it did come from a jewelry store. When we took it in to have the band repaired, the new jeweler we went to said he can fix it, but it would be cheaper to just buy a new one. He could order one identical for only like $19.95. I said it might be a cheap knock-off and this one is an original from a jewelry store, not a K-Mart special, hi hi.
We were not sure whether to believe this guy or not, so went elsewhere.
The little guy we go to now. He took a look at it and said give me a minute and I'll have you all fixed up. He repaired the band while we waiting, and I don't think this guy knows to charge anybody anything other than 5 bucks, hi hi.
After he fixed it, I asked him, does this watch look like an original or a knock-off?
He said, it is an original, and he knows of no company that makes a knock-off of it. Then he said lets see here, I know I still have the catalog for that model. He ducked in back again and came back out smiling. Here you go, and he plops the book right down in front of us. Right there on the page were two identical looking watches, both by the same maker.
The catalogue showed the suggested retail price $119.95 for the one on the left, and $29.95 for the one on the right.
I said Wow, they look the same to me, what's the difference?
He said the left one is real gemstones and the right one uses plastic for the gemstones.
Which one do we have? You have the one with real gemstones, he said. If they were plastic, they would have been all scratched up by now or some would have fell out.
After we were in the car, the frau said, you said you didn't pay over 100 bucks for this watch. I said I didn't, his book showed suggested retail. Remember the other jeweler said he could sell us one for $19.95. Oh Yeah!
Re: Vivaldi
There was a time when I felt the more dials and pointers a watch had, the more I would like it. I'm not sure when I decided I was crazy, but now all I want is an hour hand and a minute hand with 12 numbers on the dial. Everything else is something more that can break and go wrong. Plus, my eyes don't go cross trying to figure out what time it really is. It's funny but I gave up on digital display wrist watches because there is a certain amount of lag time from when I look at the reading and my brain registers what time it is. That lag doesn't occur with analog. You would think a guy who worked with electronics all his adult life would not have this problem. LOL
Now that I think about it, that Rolex knock-off I had did have some jewels on the display. I know there was one at the 12 o'clock position but not sure about the rest. The movement might have been jeweled too. It's only slightly comforting to know that I was not the only one to run into this sort of problem.
Now that I think about it, that Rolex knock-off I had did have some jewels on the display. I know there was one at the 12 o'clock position but not sure about the rest. The movement might have been jeweled too. It's only slightly comforting to know that I was not the only one to run into this sort of problem.
Re: Vivaldi
They tried digital speedometers in cars for a while, but have gone back to the dial in all the cars I've seen. Some may have both display and dial, but drivers do not get confused with the dial.
Also ironic is some kids cannot read a normal clock with hands, or more precisely, they don't understand terms like quarter-to or half-past.
While we are on clock faces. I was flying American Airlines once, and they always have their own magazine, or a magazine with their advertising in it, in the little pouch on the back of the seat in front of you.
In one of their ads, they had a picture of a clock with scientists standing around it.
The caption was something like, American Airlines flights are as accurate as the Atomic Clock in Fort Collins.
Whatever graphic artist drew the hands on this clock had them so far off it was disgraceful.
It prompted me to keep the magazine and write both American Airlines and the Publishing Company of the magazine after I got home.
I clearly stated, if I was the one who was paying for this, I would not have paid with these blatant mistakes. Because it turned the whole message of the ad into a sick joke. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that notices.
To Clarify: If you took all the hands off of your watch, except the hour hand, you could still tell approximately what time it was. At half past the hour, the hour hand would be half way between two numerals, at quarter after the hour, the hour hand would be 1/4th the way past a numeral.
On the picture of the atomic clock they drew, they showed for example:
The minute hand at 7 minutes before the top of the hour. But the hour hand showed it was only a few minutes after the hour, and the seconds hand was near the bottom, just before or just after the 30 second mark. Which means the minute hand should have been half way between the 7 and 8 if we exclude the hour hand.
The airline never responded to my letter, but the publishing company did with a half-assed apology for their editorial and graphical departments errors. But they concluded with it was really no big deal, which irked me. Claiming on-time accuracy to an inaccurate clock cited as being an atomic clock, so sad, they should have caught that error.
Also ironic is some kids cannot read a normal clock with hands, or more precisely, they don't understand terms like quarter-to or half-past.
While we are on clock faces. I was flying American Airlines once, and they always have their own magazine, or a magazine with their advertising in it, in the little pouch on the back of the seat in front of you.
In one of their ads, they had a picture of a clock with scientists standing around it.
The caption was something like, American Airlines flights are as accurate as the Atomic Clock in Fort Collins.
Whatever graphic artist drew the hands on this clock had them so far off it was disgraceful.
It prompted me to keep the magazine and write both American Airlines and the Publishing Company of the magazine after I got home.
I clearly stated, if I was the one who was paying for this, I would not have paid with these blatant mistakes. Because it turned the whole message of the ad into a sick joke. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that notices.
To Clarify: If you took all the hands off of your watch, except the hour hand, you could still tell approximately what time it was. At half past the hour, the hour hand would be half way between two numerals, at quarter after the hour, the hour hand would be 1/4th the way past a numeral.
On the picture of the atomic clock they drew, they showed for example:
The minute hand at 7 minutes before the top of the hour. But the hour hand showed it was only a few minutes after the hour, and the seconds hand was near the bottom, just before or just after the 30 second mark. Which means the minute hand should have been half way between the 7 and 8 if we exclude the hour hand.
The airline never responded to my letter, but the publishing company did with a half-assed apology for their editorial and graphical departments errors. But they concluded with it was really no big deal, which irked me. Claiming on-time accuracy to an inaccurate clock cited as being an atomic clock, so sad, they should have caught that error.
Re: Vivaldi
I know something about atomic clocks, particularly the one NIST owns and keeps near Boulder, Colorado. I went to see it one day while visiting my daughter, but they were closed and tours had to be arranged in advance. The clock itself has no hands so that the ad you saw was totally erroneous. What you noted and told others about was true for normal clocks, but the atomic variety works a little differently. They are measuring the distance between peaks of a beam of light to determine a standard time interval. That distance measurement is plotted os a graph and better be a straight line for it to be credible. There are numerous atomic clocks around the world and some have digital readouts or the traditional clock face. Neither one of those displays are accurate enough to show what's really going on down at the atomic level. So, the clock you saw was for general consumption. Nobody who saw an actual atomic clock chamber would recognize it as a timepiece; well, nobody other than the six people who work at the NIST station in Colorado. LOL
It's pretty interesting that AA didn't respond while the ad agency did. Maybe you just didn't send your complaint to the right people. Even if you did, I'm certain they would not have done anything about it.
It's pretty interesting that AA didn't respond while the ad agency did. Maybe you just didn't send your complaint to the right people. Even if you did, I'm certain they would not have done anything about it.
Re: Vivaldi
I did get to see the Atomic Clock twice, but they were not the same clock. The first time was when I was probably around 10-12 years old, the second time I was like 18 or 19.
We had an aunt and uncle who lived in Denver for a time, and then later in Boulder.
I think they must replace the clock every few years with a new one. Why I don't know.
Pictures of the current Atomic Clock do not look like either of the two I saw.
And I think they are in the process of building yet another one as we speak.
When I was in school up in Canada, we went on a tour of their atomic clock in Vancouver, but I think their main one is in Toronto. It looked nothing at all like the atomic clocks we have, in fact, they didn't look like much of anything at all. Going through the radio station was much more interesting.
We had an aunt and uncle who lived in Denver for a time, and then later in Boulder.
I think they must replace the clock every few years with a new one. Why I don't know.
Pictures of the current Atomic Clock do not look like either of the two I saw.
And I think they are in the process of building yet another one as we speak.
When I was in school up in Canada, we went on a tour of their atomic clock in Vancouver, but I think their main one is in Toronto. It looked nothing at all like the atomic clocks we have, in fact, they didn't look like much of anything at all. Going through the radio station was much more interesting.
Re: Vivaldi
I don't know how often they change the atomic clock, but I do know their accuracy deteriorates over time. There was a problem with the cesium atomic clock at one time and I don't know if they were able to fix it. It seems that a quantity of cesium was used to generate a laser beam of high quality and stability. The chunk of cesium they were using was losing atoms at a very slow but measurable rate. Thus the frequency of the beam changed. I think they were simply going to change to some other element, but I really don't recall. All I remember for certain is that a lot of high browed people were concerned that the standard was off by .0000000001 parts of a second. 
Re: Vivaldi
Well they loved to brag about the new atomic clock being .000000000003 more accurate than the old one, hi hi.
What is ironic is Clock TIME is a man made construct.
I guess we can blame it on the Sumarians from 3500 BC, hi hi.
The Babylonians copied the Sumarians in using the sexagesimal counting standard of 60.
This is why we have 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.
Now as far as having 24 hours in a day, it wasn't always like that.
The day was 10 hours, and the night 12 hours, plus one twilight hour was later added.
Then they decided to divide the time into 24 hours in a day, with noon and midnight the dividing point of AM and PM.
Trouble is, the orbit of the earth does not coincide with our current method of keeping time, thus the reason we have a Leap Year, hi hi.
What is ironic is Clock TIME is a man made construct.
I guess we can blame it on the Sumarians from 3500 BC, hi hi.
The Babylonians copied the Sumarians in using the sexagesimal counting standard of 60.
This is why we have 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.
Now as far as having 24 hours in a day, it wasn't always like that.
The day was 10 hours, and the night 12 hours, plus one twilight hour was later added.
Then they decided to divide the time into 24 hours in a day, with noon and midnight the dividing point of AM and PM.
Trouble is, the orbit of the earth does not coincide with our current method of keeping time, thus the reason we have a Leap Year, hi hi.
Re: Vivaldi
All the methods of measuring time certainly are man made. Nobody else cares. LOL It's all about accounting for the duration of an event which doesn't matter until events start interacting. Then timing is important.
I don't think it's a coincident that a circle is measured in degrees which total to 360. I believe when the elders got together to make up the rules, the orbit of the earth was close to 360 days. They just transferred that knowledge to the geometry of the day. Somewhere along the line 5 days were added to the year. The speculation is that something crashed into the planet earth, tilted its axis, and threw it out of orbit a tad. One wild eyed self proclaimed scientist suggests a piece of Jupiter flew off and collided with the earth to create what we have today. I guess the only thing that is fairly well accepted is that the length of the year did increase over the eons.
As far as needing the accuracy of an atomic clock goes, I don't think its precision per se is why they are trying to make things better. A lot of things going on these days need to by synchronized and that's where the .000000000003 of a second comes in handy.
I don't think it's a coincident that a circle is measured in degrees which total to 360. I believe when the elders got together to make up the rules, the orbit of the earth was close to 360 days. They just transferred that knowledge to the geometry of the day. Somewhere along the line 5 days were added to the year. The speculation is that something crashed into the planet earth, tilted its axis, and threw it out of orbit a tad. One wild eyed self proclaimed scientist suggests a piece of Jupiter flew off and collided with the earth to create what we have today. I guess the only thing that is fairly well accepted is that the length of the year did increase over the eons.
As far as needing the accuracy of an atomic clock goes, I don't think its precision per se is why they are trying to make things better. A lot of things going on these days need to by synchronized and that's where the .000000000003 of a second comes in handy.
Re: Vivaldi
Some say the earth is getting larger from space dust.
Other's say it is getting lighter due to loss of hydrogen into space.
The consensus is, yes the earth is getting large, while getting lighter at the same time.
So far it has not affected the earth's rotation. At least not until the next time the earth wobbles.
Scientists say the earth is slowing down 1 second each year since the peak of the last ice age.
It's orbit also speeds up and slows down in relation to how close or far away from the sun it is.
Since time as we perceive it is based on the rotation of the earth.
How can time ever truly be accurate?
Other's say it is getting lighter due to loss of hydrogen into space.
The consensus is, yes the earth is getting large, while getting lighter at the same time.
So far it has not affected the earth's rotation. At least not until the next time the earth wobbles.
Scientists say the earth is slowing down 1 second each year since the peak of the last ice age.
It's orbit also speeds up and slows down in relation to how close or far away from the sun it is.
Since time as we perceive it is based on the rotation of the earth.
How can time ever truly be accurate?
Re: Vivaldi
Basing time on the rotation of the earth went out of style long ago. Time now is referenced to the interval from the start to the completion of one cycle of cesium light. That's how they know the earth isn't exactly rotating perfectly in it's orbit. All of that is too complicated for human brains to consume, so they just look at the clock time on their smartphones and are happy with that. 
What I want to know is how can they tell the earth is getting lighter. What kind of scale are they using?
What I want to know is how can they tell the earth is getting lighter. What kind of scale are they using?
Re: Vivaldi
I think they measure the weight of the Sun and Earth when the Sun sets on the great western plains, and then after the Sun rises again, they weight the Earth and the difference between those two weights is the weight of the Sun.
It must be a pretty damn big scale, that's for sure, hi hi.
I ran across a chart once in a magazine that showed the time (based on our reckoning of time) for all the known planets at the time. It of course assumed a day was one rotation of the planet, and a year was one lap around its orbit. Then this was measured by our hour and day to compare. Interesting read for sure.
On a different note: Scientists say the center of the earth is 80% iron and 20% nickel.
I've pondered on this for years, because it is not really logical to me.
Think about it this way, gold and titanium are the two most dense metals on planet earth.
Whether you go by weight or density, gold is still the heaviest metal.
So logically, the greater the density or greater the weight, the closer to the center of the earth these elements should be.
In my minds eye, I would say logically, the very center of the earth is gold with a titanium wrapper, then the other metals like lead would be above that, iron much higher up, etc.
It must be a pretty damn big scale, that's for sure, hi hi.
I ran across a chart once in a magazine that showed the time (based on our reckoning of time) for all the known planets at the time. It of course assumed a day was one rotation of the planet, and a year was one lap around its orbit. Then this was measured by our hour and day to compare. Interesting read for sure.
On a different note: Scientists say the center of the earth is 80% iron and 20% nickel.
I've pondered on this for years, because it is not really logical to me.
Think about it this way, gold and titanium are the two most dense metals on planet earth.
Whether you go by weight or density, gold is still the heaviest metal.
So logically, the greater the density or greater the weight, the closer to the center of the earth these elements should be.
In my minds eye, I would say logically, the very center of the earth is gold with a titanium wrapper, then the other metals like lead would be above that, iron much higher up, etc.
Re: Vivaldi
Hmmmmmm ... Logically, the center of the earth should be empty. The earth is spinning on it's axis and I'd expect anything viscous to be twirled out toward the upper crust.
However, according to NASA
HEAVY METAL: https://sites.google.com/site/chempendi ... ure-metals
However, according to NASA
This makes sense in a different way. If the center is actually a 760 mile wide ball of iron, that would explain why things fall toward to the center of the earth due to gravity. The liquid around that ball extends out to a 1400 mile wide ball and is mostly nickle and iron alloy. That's a lot of mass to create gravity as we know it. Gold is not the most dense metal, but it's up near the top of the list. It's simply not as abundant as iron.What is the Earths inner core made of?
iron
At the center of the Earth is the core, which has two parts. The solid, inner core of iron has a radius of about 760 miles (about 1,220 km), according to NASA. It is surrounded by a liquid, outer core composed of a nickel-iron alloy
HEAVY METAL: https://sites.google.com/site/chempendi ... ure-metals
Re: Vivaldi
Another interesting chart. Some of the densest metals are really scarce. Must be worth a lot of dough, hi hi.
55 years ago when I was in skewl we studied the properties of gravity.
Gravity is an interesting subject, and can be duplicated with objects here on earth, to some extent, believe it or not.
If you coat a ball with wet paint and spin it, that paint is going to fly off the ball and go everywhere, with more coming off at the center and little at the poles.
Now, if you put that ball into a vacuum chamber and get it to spinning first, then drip paint onto the ball, it will stick to the ball and slowly spread out over the ball. If you have a ball with holes in it, the paint will eventually end up in the holes.
Now here is something else interesting about the ball in a vacuum. If you drill a hole all the way through the ball at the equator or even above or below the equator, as long as it passes through the center of the ball, you will find something even more unique.
Water or paint will not make it to the center of the ball, it will find its resting level at some point away from the center of the ball.
This is probably why iron goes to the center and heavier metals stay further way from the center.
Although the ball is inside a vacuum chamber, it is still affected by earths own gravity, so some paint can move toward the south pole and drip off onto the floor of the vacuum chamber.
Also in our classroom or lab whatever you call it, they had a magnetic drive beacon stir.
The teacher put this inside the vacuum chamber once to show us something he observed about spinning water.
You know the direction water spins when it goes down a drain is opposite below the equator.
However, placing the stirring device in a vacuum caused the water to be turbulent instead of spinning with the stir.
If he reversed the stir direction, then it would actually spin the water right out of the beaker.
Something it would not do sitting on the counter by itself.
A vacuum causes all kinds of properties to change and expected results to differ.
55 years ago when I was in skewl we studied the properties of gravity.
Gravity is an interesting subject, and can be duplicated with objects here on earth, to some extent, believe it or not.
If you coat a ball with wet paint and spin it, that paint is going to fly off the ball and go everywhere, with more coming off at the center and little at the poles.
Now, if you put that ball into a vacuum chamber and get it to spinning first, then drip paint onto the ball, it will stick to the ball and slowly spread out over the ball. If you have a ball with holes in it, the paint will eventually end up in the holes.
Now here is something else interesting about the ball in a vacuum. If you drill a hole all the way through the ball at the equator or even above or below the equator, as long as it passes through the center of the ball, you will find something even more unique.
Water or paint will not make it to the center of the ball, it will find its resting level at some point away from the center of the ball.
This is probably why iron goes to the center and heavier metals stay further way from the center.
Although the ball is inside a vacuum chamber, it is still affected by earths own gravity, so some paint can move toward the south pole and drip off onto the floor of the vacuum chamber.
Also in our classroom or lab whatever you call it, they had a magnetic drive beacon stir.
The teacher put this inside the vacuum chamber once to show us something he observed about spinning water.
You know the direction water spins when it goes down a drain is opposite below the equator.
However, placing the stirring device in a vacuum caused the water to be turbulent instead of spinning with the stir.
If he reversed the stir direction, then it would actually spin the water right out of the beaker.
Something it would not do sitting on the counter by itself.
A vacuum causes all kinds of properties to change and expected results to differ.
Re: Vivaldi
There are a whole lot of forces involved with those experiments you describe, e.g., centrifugal and centripetal force, surface tension of fluids, simple friction, gravity, and black magic. Gravity is not affected at all by a vacuum so that I'd assume something else accounted for the results in your lab experiments. And it is true that every mass has gravitational attraction. When you and I stand next to each other there is an attraction due to gravity, which, of course, is greatly overcome by the gravity of the earth itself. The gravity of the moon causes tides, as you must know. It's everywhere; just ask Albert Einstein. Oh wait, he's dead. A very grave circumstance.
The thing I don't get about gravity is that they have finally proven it's a wave of some sort. They don't know where it's coming from, but they have measured it. I once saw a picture of it's wavy effects on some distant cosmic object, which was supposed to be the proof. I guess everything else in the universe is vibrating in one way or another; why not gravity too? I love astro-physics and cosmology.
The thing I don't get about gravity is that they have finally proven it's a wave of some sort. They don't know where it's coming from, but they have measured it. I once saw a picture of it's wavy effects on some distant cosmic object, which was supposed to be the proof. I guess everything else in the universe is vibrating in one way or another; why not gravity too? I love astro-physics and cosmology.
Re: Vivaldi
OK, you got me on that one. I don't think he was demonstrating gravity but something else entirely.
Gravitation is super weak, but extends a long way from its source.
I'm trying to remember what it was he was doing, and for some reason, I think it had something to do with a gyroscope inside of a large steel ball. Might have had something to do with magnet fields also.
Heck, that was way back in my Junior year in high school, physics lab if I recall.
Gravitation is super weak, but extends a long way from its source.
I'm trying to remember what it was he was doing, and for some reason, I think it had something to do with a gyroscope inside of a large steel ball. Might have had something to do with magnet fields also.
Heck, that was way back in my Junior year in high school, physics lab if I recall.
Re: Vivaldi
I remember my physics class from high school too. The teacher was one Mr. Scott. I'd say about half the classes were movies from the NOVA series. LOL The reason I remember that class is because we were told one day that photographers would be coming by to photograph the lab for the coming school year book. So, on the day of the photo shoot I wore the most colorful shirt I could find in my closet. Sure enough, they picked me as one of the models in the pictures. So, I am now immortalized as a colorful physics student at my old high school.
Re: Vivaldi
Smart move! I'm in a couple of pictures in two of our school yearbooks, one for the Ham radio club, and one for the chess club, in one. And in another in the Symphonic Band and Ham radio club. Plus with our regular class photo's of course.
Ironically, I chemistry teachers name was Pyro, not exactly spelled that way I don't think, but it fit.
Although our physics classes were in a couple of classrooms, for our lab work we had like three or four teachers who taught the lab sessions. I enjoyed chemistry lab despite the crazy idiot of a teacher. Physics class was the most phun though. I don't remember the teachers name, but he always had some amazing experiment he had up and running and would talk about it the entire class.
We held one class outside on the sidewalk that ran past the physics lab. He was shooting a marble about 100 feet or so, to prove something. Naturally for the experiment to work, the projectile had to be round, and the pipe he shot it out of perfectly level with no rifling in the barrel.
A round object shot from smooth bore rifle, held perfectly level, will hit the ground at exactly the same time another round ball is dropped from the same height as the rifle.
There is no spin and therefore no lift or steering affect on the projectile.
He did go on in this experiment to show how lift could be provided to a round object, and or steering, sorta.
He could purposely make the ball stay up longer, or drop faster, or veer to the right or the left, without moving the barrel.
How he did this was by creating a rough line, like a sandblasted line, only about a 64th of an inch wide inside the otherwise polished pipe. The would cause the marble to spin. If the rough line was on the bottom, the ball would travel further before hitting the ground and after the dropped ball did. If the rough line was on the top, the ball would hit the ground in a much shorter distance and before the dropped ball. With the rough line on the left or right, the ball would veer right or left respectively, but still hit the ground at the same time as the dropped ball.
One of the reasons we loved this teacher is because he always showed us in real life how things worked, not just little tabletop measly experiments.
Ironically, I chemistry teachers name was Pyro, not exactly spelled that way I don't think, but it fit.
Although our physics classes were in a couple of classrooms, for our lab work we had like three or four teachers who taught the lab sessions. I enjoyed chemistry lab despite the crazy idiot of a teacher. Physics class was the most phun though. I don't remember the teachers name, but he always had some amazing experiment he had up and running and would talk about it the entire class.
We held one class outside on the sidewalk that ran past the physics lab. He was shooting a marble about 100 feet or so, to prove something. Naturally for the experiment to work, the projectile had to be round, and the pipe he shot it out of perfectly level with no rifling in the barrel.
A round object shot from smooth bore rifle, held perfectly level, will hit the ground at exactly the same time another round ball is dropped from the same height as the rifle.
There is no spin and therefore no lift or steering affect on the projectile.
He did go on in this experiment to show how lift could be provided to a round object, and or steering, sorta.
He could purposely make the ball stay up longer, or drop faster, or veer to the right or the left, without moving the barrel.
How he did this was by creating a rough line, like a sandblasted line, only about a 64th of an inch wide inside the otherwise polished pipe. The would cause the marble to spin. If the rough line was on the bottom, the ball would travel further before hitting the ground and after the dropped ball did. If the rough line was on the top, the ball would hit the ground in a much shorter distance and before the dropped ball. With the rough line on the left or right, the ball would veer right or left respectively, but still hit the ground at the same time as the dropped ball.
One of the reasons we loved this teacher is because he always showed us in real life how things worked, not just little tabletop measly experiments.