| 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] |
PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu writes:
I would not recommend this demonstration.
For both the sake of the studnets and the legal affairs department I agree
with avoiding this demonstration. Dramatic, yes but not worth the risk.
I agree with both of you. Let me add that this is not a demonstration at
all, except in the trivial way that everything that occurs in the physical
universe does so physically. What great new science is revealed when one
uses a pop bottle instead of, say, a balloon? Sure, it's more dramatic to
use a pop bottle, but then why not use a pipe bomb? They aren't hard to
make either, as is "demonstrated" by the fact that we did lose a British
Columbia teenager to a pipe bomb last week.
Some theatrical "demonstrations" are justified to enhance the process of
acquiring the attention of the jaded adolescent masses. I do such things
myself, I admit. Let's not dignify them beyond that, however. I doubt that
the explosion of a pop bottle under these circumstances comes as a
surprise to anyone. It suffices to stipulate that the bottle will explode
and move on. After all, we don't demonstrate the remarkable effect vacuum
has on mice, do we? There are (or should be) limits to what we will do to
illustrate a physical phenomenon. http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/grill.jpg is a
picture of a famous fool.
Leigh