Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 120.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "Paul F. Schaffner" <pfs@umich.edu> (18)
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
[2] From: "Pat Moran" <pjmoran@gdsys.net> (138)
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
[3] From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@statistik.uni- (124)
dortmund.de>
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
[4] From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@statistik.uni- (55)
dortmund.de>
Subject: Bonus Question: Is hell exothermic (gives off heat)
or endothermic(absorbs heat)?
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:45:55 +0100
From: "Paul F. Schaffner" <pfs@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
> The following charming story has been circulating in print and via E-mail
> for decades, but, recently, has developed a new twist.
***
> "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."
***
> Can anyone authenticate the story as being attributable to Bohr?
According the the "Urban Legend Reference Pages,"
(http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometr.htm), the story
has not been traced back earlier than a 1961 reference to it
by Dr. Alexander Calandra, who tells it in the first person
and may have invented it; the association with Niels Bohr
seems to have appeared for the first time only last year (1999).
[I owe this reference to (physicist) Steve Schaffner
(sfs@genome.wi.mit.edu).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | pfs@umich.edu | http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/
University of Michigan Digital Library Production Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:46:18 +0100
From: "Pat Moran" <pjmoran@gdsys.net>
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
"The Barometer Story" appears on page 198-199 in chapter 18 of Peg C.
Neuhauser's CORPORATE LEGENDS AND LORE (McGraw-Hill, 1993), but the
elaboration immediately below and the
possible Bohr anecdote are not included. Pat Moran, Graduate Student, Ed
Foundations,
312 Stone Building, FSU, Tallahassee, FL 32306 pjm0362@mailer.fsu.edu
=======
----- Original Message -----
From: Humanist Discussion Group
<willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>) <willard@lists.village.virginia.edu>
To: Humanist Discussion Group <humanist@lists.Princeton.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:47 AM
>
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 114.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
> <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:45:00 +0100
> From: "Dr Donald J. Weinshank" <weinshan@cse.msu.edu>
> Subject: Measuring the height of a building with a barometer.
>
> Fellow Humanists:
>
> The following charming story has been circulating in print and via E-mail
> for decades, but, recently, has developed a new twist.
>
> =================================================================
> Great Moments in Physics
>
> The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam.
>
> "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper
> with a barometer."
>
> One student replied:
>
> "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the
> barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of
> the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string
> plus the length of the barometer will equal the height
> of the building."
>
> This highly original answer so incensed the examiner
> that the student was failed. The student appealed on
> the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct,
> and the university appointed an independent arbiter to
> decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer
> was indeed correct but did not display any noticeable
> knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was
> decided to call the student in and allow him six
> minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which
> showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic
> principles of physics.
>
> For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead
> creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time
> was running out, to which the student replied that he
> had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't
> make up his mind which to use.
>
> On being advised to hurry up the student replied as
> follows:
>
> "Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof
> of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure
> the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of
> the building can then be worked out from the formula H
> = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer."
>
> "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height
> of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the
> length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of
> the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple
> matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the
> height of the skyscraper."
>
> "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it,
> you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer
> and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level
> and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is
> worked out by the difference in the gravitational
> restoring force T = 2 pi sqroot (l / g)."
>
> "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency
> staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark
> off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths,
> then add them up."
>
> "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about
> it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure
> the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on
> the ground, and convert the difference in millibars
> into feet to give the height of the building."
>
> "But since we are constantly being exhorted to
> exercise independence of mind and apply scientific
> methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on
> the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a
> nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you
> tell me the height of this skyscraper'."
>
> =================================================================
>
> This is a lovely example of "thinking out of the box" and has been
> widely circulated.
>
> Recently, however, I have received several copies of the story with two
> additions.
>
> 1. The story is set at the University of Copenhagen.
> 2. The following "tag line" has been added:
>
> The student was Niels Bohr, the only person from
> Denmark to win the Nobel prize for Physics.
>
> If true, this would not be entirely surprising. After all,
> the battles between Bohr and Einstein at
> the Solvay conferences in the late '20's hinged
> on such "gedankenexperimenten" covering their
> disagreements. Bohr was one of the champions of
> quantum mechanics. Einstein always felt that "God
> does not play dice" and that there had to be a deeper,
> underlying mechanism, not simply random chance.
>
> Be that as it may, can anyone authenticate the story
> as being attributable to Bohr?
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Dr. Don Weinshank weinshan@cse.msu.edu
> http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weinshan
> Phone (517) 353-0831 FAX (517) 432-1061
> Computer Science & Engineering Michigan State University
>
>
>
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:46:40 +0100
From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Subject: Re: 14.0114 a charming story
Dear Dr. Donald Weinshank,
Hi,
A very interesting story, an intelligent response! Thanks, I cann't resist
myself to give my own thoughts..
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:45:00 +0100
> From: "Dr Donald J. Weinshank" <weinshan@cse.msu.edu>
> >
> Fellow Humanists:
>
> The following charming story has been circulating in print and via E-mail
> for decades, but, recently, has developed a new twist.
>
> =================================================================
> Great Moments in Physics
>
> The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam.
>
> "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper
> with a barometer."
>
> One student replied:
>
> "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the
> barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of
> the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string
> plus the length of the barometer will equal the height
> of the building."
>
> This highly original answer so incensed the examiner
> that the student was failed. The student appealed on
> the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct,
> and the university appointed an independent arbiter to
> decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer
> was indeed correct but did not display any noticeable
> knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was
> decided to call the student in and allow him six
> minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which
> showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic
> principles of physics.
>
> For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead
> creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time
> was running out, to which the student replied that he
> had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't
> make up his mind which to use.
>
> On being advised to hurry up the student replied as
> follows:
>
> "Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof
> of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure
> the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of
> the building can then be worked out from the formula H
> = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer."
Yes, using the Second Law of equation, and taking initial velocity u,
zero.
> "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height
> of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the
> length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of
> the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple
> matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the
> height of the skyscraper."
Yes, here we could measure the height of a skyscraper by method of
*Trigonometry Ratios* first by checking the angles of elevation
(depression) of Sun to the ground, and then using Tangent of theta.
> "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it,
> you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer
> and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level
> and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is
> worked out by the difference in the gravitational
> restoring force T = 2 pi sqroot (l / g)."
>
> "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency
> staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark
> off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths,
> then add them up."
>
> "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about
> it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure
> the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on
> the ground, and convert the difference in millibars
> into feet to give the height of the building."
>
> "But since we are constantly being exhorted to
> exercise independence of mind and apply scientific
> methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on
> the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a
> nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you
> tell me the height of this skyscraper'."
Great, Birbal replies to Emperor Akbar!!
> =================================================================
>
> This is a lovely example of "thinking out of the box" and has been
> widely circulated.
>
> Recently, however, I have received several copies of the story with two
> additions.
>
> 1. The story is set at the University of Copenhagen.
> 2. The following "tag line" has been added:
>
> The student was Niels Bohr, the only person from
> Denmark to win the Nobel prize for Physics.
>
> If true, this would not be entirely surprising. After all,
> the battles between Bohr and Einstein at
> the Solvay conferences in the late '20's hinged
> on such "gedankenexperimenten" covering their
> disagreements. Bohr was one of the champions of
> quantum mechanics. Einstein always felt that "God
> does not play dice" and that there had to be a deeper,
> underlying mechanism, not simply random chance.
>
> Be that as it may, can anyone authenticate the story
> as being attributable to Bohr?
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Dr. Don Weinshank weinshan@cse.msu.edu
> http://www.cse.msu.edu/~weinshan
> Phone (517) 353-0831 FAX (517) 432-1061
> Computer Science & Engineering Michigan State University
Sincerely
Arun Tripathi
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:51:04 +0100
From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Subject: Bonus Question: Is hell exothermic (gives off heat) or
endothermic(absorbs heat)?
Dear Humanists,
(fwd via Janet Young) --some food for thought --might interest you--
This email "send around" was sent to me by a prof at Temple University...
Kind of makes you go hummmmmmmmmmm...
Have a great weekend!.
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington
>chemistry midterm. The answer was so "profound" that the professor
>shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of
>enjoying it as well.
>
>Bonus Question: Is hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
>(absorbs heat)?
>
>Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, gas
>cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed, or some
>variant.
>
>One student, however, wrote the following:
>
>First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
>need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate that
>they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul
>gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
>
>As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
>religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state
>that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
>
>Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not
>belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to
>Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number
>of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
>
>Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's
>Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay
>the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.
>
>This allows two possibilities:
>
>1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
>enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until
>all Hell breaks loose.
>
>2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of
>souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell
>freezes over.
>
>So which is it?
>
>If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my
>Freshman year that "... it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with
>you" and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in
>having sexual relations with her, the #2 cannot be true, and thus I am
>sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
>
>The student received the only "A" given.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 07:10:47 CUT