CrazyIvan 0 #1 February 16, 2004 Who knew!!!! http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/16/science.candy.reut/index.html__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 February 16, 2004 And thus...the age old question...what's a better value....a gallon of plain or a gallon of peanut M&M's...has been answered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #3 February 16, 2004 They should try that with skittles____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #4 February 16, 2004 QuoteAnd thus...the age old question...what's a better value....a gallon of plain or a gallon of peanut M&M's...has been answered. I don't think they shook long enough. Spheres can occupy 74.05% of a volume, and do if given a chance. A natural experiment on this topic takes place evertime an opal (gemstone) is created. Spheres of precipitated SiO2 deposit on a stream bed randomly, and pack down over eons of time, being "shaken" by the currents in the stream. Eventually they form an arrangement that occupies 74% of the volume available, wheras the M&Ms only filled 68%. www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.30/QX/read.htm "Adopting techniques that are analogous to self-assembly in natural opals, Geoffrey A. Ozin and his colleagues, Hernan Miguez and San Ming Wang at the university's Materials Chemistry Research Group, condense silica microspheres from colloidal suspensions into crystalline opal structures. Naturally occurring opal forms when silica spheres precipitate from solutions or colloidal suspensions into seams or crevices in surrounding rock. Most opal is amorphous, but the silica spheres in precious opal organize into a face-centered-cubic structure well-suited for photonic bandgap crystals because of the index variation between the silica spheres and the interstitial material." Click here to see a derivation of the 74.05% value for spheres: www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/webmodules/spherepacking.htm So there!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 February 16, 2004 where does it say anything about 74% in your link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #6 February 16, 2004 Quotewhere does it say anything about 74% in your link? Well, I am a physics prof, but there's a link if you won't believe me: See edit to my first post... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 February 16, 2004 Hmmm...but that's referring to packing in a cube. The original article they were put into a barrel/tube, wouldn' t that make a difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #8 February 16, 2004 QuoteHmmm...but that's referring to packing in a cube. The original article they were put into a barrel/tube, wouldn' t that make a difference? Nope. You can consider the tube (if large enough) to be made up of a lot of small cubic shaped units. Besides, if container shape mattered, it wouldn't be a physics problem (remember "assume the horse is a sphere").... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #9 February 16, 2004 If you use one of these and the little fuckers 'll reach close to 98%.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #10 February 16, 2004 I misread the writing on the side of that ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JeffD 0 #11 February 16, 2004 I am not sure how much of a "breakthrough" this is. Think about it... Like said above, a perfect sphere would take up 74%. But if you stretched it out it would start to take up more and more space with less "surface" pretend these are spheres ()()()()()()()()()() every where a sphere touches you lose alot of "packing" but if they were say (_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_) each sphere takes up more volume and has less surface. so you could "fill" more with these than you could above. or like turtlespeed said, just mash 'em to bits and you'll get alot better packing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #12 February 16, 2004 Quotepretend these are spheres ()()()()()()()()()() every where a sphere touches you lose alot of "packing" but if they were say (_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_)(_) each sphere takes up more volume and has less surface. so you could "fill" more with these than you could above. Yes...but if you added 1 M&M to those spheres you'll get BOOBIES!!! (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.)__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 February 16, 2004 TRhen ya don't wanna smack em around and crush em, just knead tyhem and "Smak" em like in a "Peanuts" kinda "Smak"I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
