Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: weight of a bird in a cage



I was wondering when someone would question the 0.1 mg fly. It takes
an analytical balance to resolve 0.1 mg and getting a precision of 0.1
mg on a 20 g mass is not something we can do with our $2000 electronic
balances.

I assumed the correct mass of the fly was 0.1 g (he mentioned it was a
big fly didn't he). A good top loader can have a resolution of 0.01 g,
and with reasonable care to avoid air currents in the lab, a 20 g box
can be weighed (massed) with a precision of about 0.01 g. That would
imply that had the measured mass decreased by the mass of the fly (0.1
g) when the fly flew, it ought to be detectable in a measurement made
to +- 0.01 g. But 0.1 mg just doesn't make any sense.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sylvester [SMTP:msylvest@SPIN.IT]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 9:38 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: weight of a bird in a cage

At 18:19 05-09-99 -0500, brian whatcott wrote:
Ludwik and Mark had a question about a crucial experiment of the
'bird in a box' variety that Jim described. (Quoted below)

The purpose of Jim's description was to demonstrate that the
weight of a box plus flying animal is unchanging, momentary
excursions excepted.

The problem with Ludwik's query, is that it asks if the box
+ animal weight remains constant plus or minus the animal's weight.

The answer to which is "Yes of course, whether it decides in favor
or against either of the following positions":

"the flying animal's weight reacts on the floor" OR
"The flying animal's weight is NOT reacted on the floor".

Hence, I deduce that Ludwik's question went unanswered because
an answer to his question would not contribute anything meaningful
to the discussion.

I am quite certain that this is not the response Ludwik meant
to invoke. But I cannot read his mind, only his words.


snipping the rest of Brian's enigmatic speculations, let me clarify.

Jim Ealy wrote:

Listmembers;

My nature always says go to the lab when I hear "opinions" (I know
that
places me several rungs down THE ladder)

My high school students several years ago made a box from
dry-cleaner's
plastic wrap and balsa - total was less than 20 grams about 50 cm by
50
cm. A closed system sealed with tape, after fly was inserted -
positive
pressure. We waited until spring to capture one of those large flies
(commonly called - casement flies) that emerge in rooms. They placed
the
fly in the "box" and placed it on a top-loading balance: 0.1 mg.

*What* weighed 0.1 mg? The fly? Are there really 10 million *big* flies
in a
kg?
This struck me as surprising, so I question what exactly the sentence
means.


There is
no question about what happens (flying,landing, starting off from
bottom
or side or top (or repeating after punching holes in plastic for air
to
move in or out as in an open system)).

But what happens - is it that the reading never varies (momentarily) by
more
than 0.1 mg?

Brian points out that Ludwik screwed up his question (and I didn't read
it
carefully enough), but I really would like to know what Jim meant.
Maybe
I'll just catch some flies and weigh them....

Mark


Mark Sylvester
United World College of the Adriatic
34013 Duino TS
Italy
msylvest@spin.it