Here's a brain teaser for you...!

[N8Magic]

If you were to take a room temperature glass of water, and set it outside on a chair, would it freeze given the following conditions?

Temperature: 34 degrees (fahrenheit)
Wind: from the North at 30 mph.
Wind Chill: 20 degrees
Humidity: 39%

What do you think? (I already know the answer, and YES, I am that bored.)

 

[StageLeft]

<< If you were to take a room temperature glass of water, and set it outside on a chair, would it freeze given the following conditions?

Temperature: 34 degrees (fahrenheit)
Wind: from the North at 30 mph.
Wind Chill: 20 degrees
Humidity: 39%

What do you think? (I already know the answer, and YES, I am that bored.) >>

I'm gonna say no. Wind chill doesn't bring something below ambient and I don't believe humidity would make a difference either.

 

[rgwalt]

No

Ryan

 

[Ns1]

no (i have a 50/50 chance of gettin it right, right?)

 

[Haircut]

No

 

[N8Magic]

<< I'm gonna say no. Wind chill doesn't bring something below ambient and I don't believe humidity would make a difference either. >>



Very good Skoorb! Wind chill only accelerates heat loss to the ambient temperature, and no lower.

You wouldn't believe how many people get that question wrong.

 

[GL]

Dunno, and am too lazy to calculate (if it's one of those smartass teasers I probably missed the catch).

But I do have another question that I made up one night that's been nagging me.

Which are more numerous. The number of pixels produced by CRTs all around the world in one second or the number of atoms in the universe. Assume a pixel has a finite lifespan spanning the life of one screen refresh - i.e. at 1600x1200x85Hz 1.632*10^8 pixels would be produced. If there are less pixels than atoms, how many more CRTs would have to be produced and what would have to be the average screen resolution and refresh rate of all these CRTs for the number of pixels to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe.

And don't bother asking me the answer...I really don't know. As I said, I was up late one night and I just thought up the question!

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<< I'm gonna say no. Wind chill doesn't bring something below ambient and I don't believe humidity would make a difference either. >>



Very good Skoorb! Wind chill only accelerates heat loss to the ambient temperature, and no lower.

You wouldn't believe how many people get that question wrong. >>

Too bad too, because if wind chill some of us would have 4' fans beside our computers bringing the internals down below zero

 

[Dhawk]

No. I don't think it would freeze unless it got below 32 degrees ambiant, regardless of what the windchill factor or humity was.

EDIT: oops to late

 

[TheBeast]

My guess

No,

wind chill is not a "real" temperature.

The temperature really is 34, it only "feels" like it is 20 because of the wind (the wind accelerates evaporation of water off of your skin making it feel colder than it actually is IIRC)

 

[N8Magic]

<< Which are more numerous. The number of pixels produced by CRTs all around the world in one second or the number of atoms in the universe. Assume a pixel has a finite lifespan spanning the life of one screen refresh - i.e. at 1600x1200x85Hz 1.632*10^8 pixels would be produced. If there are less pixels than atoms, how many more CRTs would have to be produced and what would have to be the average screen resolution and refresh rate of all these CRTs for the number of pixels to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe. >>



The atoms are more numerous. This is because the universe has an infinite mass, and therefore, an infinite number of atoms. Unless you can get monitor production up to infinity units, I think you're out of luck in answering that question fully.

 

[Haircut]

<< Which are more numerous. The number of pixels produced by CRTs all around the world in one second or the number of atoms in the universe. Assume a pixel has a finite lifespan spanning the life of one screen refresh - i.e. at 1600x1200x85Hz 1.632*10^8 pixels would be produced. If there are less pixels than atoms, how many more CRTs would have to be produced and what would have to be the average screen resolution and refresh rate of all these CRTs for the number of pixels to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe. >>



Number of atoms is bigger by a LONG way.

Assuming each CRT has 1.6*10^8 pixels as you say.
There are 6*10^23 atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen, thus we would need 3.75 * 10^15 (that's 625,000 CRTs for every person on Earth) just to equal the number of atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen.

 

[GL]

<<

<< Which are more numerous. The number of pixels produced by CRTs all around the world in one second or the number of atoms in the universe. Assume a pixel has a finite lifespan spanning the life of one screen refresh - i.e. at 1600x1200x85Hz 1.632*10^8 pixels would be produced. If there are less pixels than atoms, how many more CRTs would have to be produced and what would have to be the average screen resolution and refresh rate of all these CRTs for the number of pixels to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe. >>



The atoms are more numerous. This is because the universe has an infinite mass, and therefore, an infinite number of atoms. Unless you can get monitor production up to infinity units, I think you're out of luck in answering that question fully. >>



Point to you. I suppose I should be more specific (I'm operating on the theory the universe has a finite mass) so I'll reproduce a Q&A off a 100 series Physics course at a university to give us some numbers to work with for this half of the question.



<< How many atoms are there in the visible Universe? Cosmology tells us that the mass of the visible Universe (the part made of ordinary, i.e., baryonic, matter) is about 10^52 kg. Hydrogen is the most abundant atom in the Universe, so use the proton mass as the mass per atom. The number you get is impressively big, but far from infinite!


Aside: The mass estimate for the Universe assumes our visible horizon is 15 billion light years away, and that the Universe has 5% of its critical (verge of turnaroud) density in the form of baryons (normal stuff). The critical density is a meager 10^-29 g/cm3. Compare this to water, with a density of 1 g/cm3.


Now you can also estimate the number of galaxies in the visible Universe. If a typical galaxy has a mass of 10^11 times the mass of our sun, which itself is 2x1030 kg, how many typical galaxies do you get? The resulting number is a number you actually know how to say, as opposed to the horrendously large numbers from the previous questions >>

 

[chickenhead]

Each pixel uses more than one atom to even exist in the first place.

Therefore, atoms are more numerous.