Chip with simple program for Toy

[Homer J Simpson]

"Dumb_Blonde" <nojunkmale@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173823645.400382.124790@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

See HowStuffWorks.com

 

[Apostrophe Police]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:20:17 +0100, martin griffith wrote:

On 13 Mar 2007 13:46:36 -0700, in sci.electronics.design "werty"
werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

I build test equip' .

So how do you test pizza's?

Test a pizza's what?

Apostrophes are not used for plurals, except in certain special
cases.

Thanks,
Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief,
Apostrophe Police

 

[John Popelish]

Dumb_Blonde wrote:

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

This is not so much a fire cracker rocket is it is a fire

cracker cannon.

A rocket gets its propulsive force by having a high pressure
gas accelerate out the back. Any mass being accelerated
requires a force. The force generated in the rocket engine
that accelerates the exhaust out one direction, also puts
the same force on the rest of the rocket, pushing it in the
other direction.

A cannon builds up gas pressure in a small volume inside a
barrel, and that pressure pushes the projectile out the end
of the barrel, while also pushing the other way on the
cannon. There are action and reaction forces in both cases,
but a rocket normally does not involve the containing barrel
that holds the pressure till the projectile escapes the muzzle.

In this case, the telescoping outer and inner can form the
containing barrel, and the water forms a seal between them.
The fire cracker goes off, essentially instantaneously
(before the top can can move or the water get pushed out pf
the way), increasing the pressure in the small volume above
the water, inside the inverted can. That pressure is what
accelerates the can upward as it slides out of the water.

If you had a wire mesh or some other loose and open
structure to hold the top can in place with just a bit above
the water line, the result is almost the same, since it is
mostly the mass of the water inside the top can the pressure
pushes against while the top can takes off, not so much the
sides of the bottom can. But proving that this is the case
by trial would make for an interesting experiment. So don't
take my word for it.

You could probably get a much more detailed explanation in
the sci.physics newsgroup.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Dumb_Blonde" <nojunkmale@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173823645.400382.124790@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

The firecracker contains a power that when combusts creates a huge amount of
gas.(this is same reason why guns work). You have surely seen black powder
guns being fired and all the smoke they create. Now days one tends to use
smokeless powder but there is still a huge amount of gas created in the
chemical reaction with powder and air.

Now for the reaction to occur on has to have oxygen and heat with the
powder. The heat comes from the flame, and the oxygen comes from another
powder stored in the gun powder. (else you could not fire a bullet because
you could not get the oxygen in the case)


If you have a closed vessel then when you light the fire cracker the gun
powder will combust and release a huge amount of gas. This gas will fill up
the vessel and if there is enough gas released then there will be a huge
amount of pressure inside. If its high enough the vessel will rupture.

In this case the vessel is a can. It is filled with water to reduce the
volume inside to effectively make it a smaller can. Water is incompressible
so that you don't have to worry about it compressing like the gas will. (it
will effectively act like a wall to the gas) Ofcourse the can has to have
an open end so it can move but since the water is not attached to the can in
any way the can is free to move upward although there is, ofcoures, some
friction involved.

The then plugs the small hold drilled in the bottom of the can(which is
actually the top here) with the firecracker. This prevents the gas escaping
when the fire cracker combusts. Its best to push the firecracker as far in
as possible and you can do experiments with this to see. If its barely in
then chances are the firecracker will shoot out or nothing will happen. The
farther its in the higher the can should go.

This is effectively a bullet and the same principles are involved. Its not
so much a rocket as almost all the thrust involved occurs almost immediately
and not through a well defined burn. (infact its basically an elastic
collision)

Hope this helps a little, you can probably find more details on line but now
you have something to work with.

Jon

 

[DaveC]

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

If you just put a can on the ground and light the fire cracker, the can will
go a little way up in the air.

If you put the can in a little larger can filled 2/3 with water, the water
acts as a seal, keeping escaping "exhaust" of the explosion from leaking out.
This extra exhaust increases the lift of the can, boosting it higher than if
no water was used.

Hope that helps...

Enjoy. I remember such things (model rocket launches) as a boy. What fun!
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

 

[David L. Jones]

On Mar 14, 9:07 am, "Dumb_Blonde" <nojunkm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_exper...

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

This might interest him too:
http://www.matchstickrockets.com/
Great fun for kids.

Dave

 

[DaveC]

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

Think of your car's engine (let's say it is a 4-cylinder engine) as 4 cans
(called pistons in car-speak) with firecrackers. Then tie each can to a
crankshaft with connecting rods (!). When each firecracker explodes, it
pushes the piston down which, in turn, turns the crank shaft. With 4 (or 6 or
8 or 10) depending on the design of your engine), this results in a relative
smooth translation of exploding gasoline (rather than firecrackers) into
motion.

I like this little video that shows graphically how an engine works:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPzPv-tT4BI>

The blue stuff is gasoline and air coming into the cylinder. The brown stuff
is exhaust. Note that when the "bang" happens the piston goes down.

*That's* how cans'n'firecrackers work like a car engine! Well, roughly...

Enjoy,
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

 

[CptDondo]

Dumb_Blonde wrote:

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

For a somewhat safer experiment, google for soda rocket.

A bit more work to set up.

--Yan

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Radiosrfun" <Radiosrfun@radiosrfun.com> wrote in message
news:45f31aee$0$8991$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...

Be that as it may, I suppose it depends on which Dictionary the term
comes from - I've included one down below which substantiates your
words. The one I read - simply said you do "not" believe in any
deity. Faith is "usually" co-joined with "religion".

atheist
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or
deities

Unbeliever in gods: Show me one and I'll believe in it.

Faith: I have total faith in gravity and avoid challenging my belief.

There is physical evidence for gravity, so a belief in gravity is not faith.
Faith is belief without evidence. This should be contrasted with lack of
proof. Proof is rarely possible in science, and is not a requirement of
science. Beliefs without proof is completely reasonable. We just need
sufficient evidence to hold a belief as a "correct"

ka@anasoft.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Radiosrfun]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wR6Kh.2018$B37.1833@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

Homer J Simpson wrote:
"Radiosrfun" <Radiosrfun@radiosrfun.com> wrote in message
news:45f31aee$0$8991$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...

Be that as it may, I suppose it depends on which Dictionary the term
comes from - I've included one down below which substantiates your
words. The one I read - simply said you do "not" believe in any
deity. Faith is "usually" co-joined with "religion".

atheist
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or
deities

Unbeliever in gods: Show me one and I'll believe in it.

Faith: I have total faith in gravity and avoid challenging my belief.

There is physical evidence for gravity, so a belief in gravity is not
faith. Faith is belief without evidence. This should be contrasted with
lack of proof. Proof is rarely possible in science, and is not a
requirement of science. Beliefs without proof is completely reasonable.
We just need sufficient evidence to hold a belief as a "correct"

ka@anasoft.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

Damned, I thought this thread finally bit the dust....

I'm sure you've heard someone stating something like - "I have faith that my
friend will come through for me". You are believing/trusting in that person
to come through............. course, there are never any guarantees.

But, being we're still in this thread - some "could" relate Queer Osama Bin
Laden and his bunch of murdering fags - to the "Anti-Christ" as has been
spoken of in the Bible - being they don't believe in anything else but their
own form of Islam (being others have alluded there are two brands - Osamas
and "real").
While we're at it, I hear he celebrated his birthday recently. Maybe he got
lucky and got his alotment of male species on which to rest his lips.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:07:19 +0000, DaveC wrote:

Thank you in advance for your time. I found a neat project to do with
my 14 year old son, but would like to know the science behind it so it
will be educational.

Here is the video link.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/470767/firecracker_rocket_project_experiment/

It is a fire cracker experiment, and I know he will love it, but I am
clueless as to how this makes my car run.

If you just put a can on the ground and light the fire cracker, the can will
go a little way up in the air.

If you put the can in a little larger can filled 2/3 with water, the water
acts as a seal, keeping escaping "exhaust" of the explosion from leaking out.
This extra exhaust increases the lift of the can, boosting it higher than if
no water was used.

Once when I was a kid, we did this with an M-80. The only part that went
into the air was the end of the inner can, and a bunch of water. The
other cans split wide open; there was an imprint of the outer can's
rim explosively molded into what was left of the inner can.

So, be careful!

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:52:21 -0800, lovelydiab wrote:

"True Prophet" - big deal.

There have been dozens, maybe hundreds of "true prophets" through
the millennia.

I say, any godling who orders you to mutilate your children is no
God in my book.

Good Luck!
Rich
--
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:02:42 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:31:15 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

I think once americans realize that islam is the true target then we will
have something to fight against.

Islam isn't the problem. Religions are the problem. Lennon was right -
'Imagine'.

Hilarious, a billionaire singing "Imagine no possessions..."

Speaking of the problem of religion, Bill Maher was on some talk show
the other night, and the host asked him if he wanted to throw his hat
in the ring, so to speak. He said, "Are you nuts? I'm the guy who says
religion is bad and drugs are good!"

The truth is Free Will is Good, and anything in opposition to Free Will
is Evil.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:37:45 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:54:51 +0000, Eeyore
John Larkin wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote

I think once americans realize that islam is the true target then we will
have something to fight against.

Islam isn't the problem. Religions are the problem. Lennon was right -
'Imagine'.

Hilarious, a billionaire singing "Imagine no possessions..."

He wasn't actually worth that much.

Aren't you capable of grasping a concept btw ?

You mean communism? Even the kibbutz, probably the only experiment in
communism that ever actually worked [1], are giving it up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1431766.ece

The emotional power of music is amazing. It has an incredible ability
to make people not think. Barbara "People Who Need People" Streisand
has a rule that domestic help and hotel staff are not allowed to make
eye contact with her. Cat Stevens sang all those love-and-freedom
PeaceTrainWildWorld songs "to make as much money as fast as I possibly
could." Do you grasp that concept?
[1] because the coherent force was religion.

I think you're missing the point - the first word of the song, after all,
is "Imagine."

Can you do that? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:16:36 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:42:36 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

You cannot grasp the concept of a rich man who can think for himself? What
a
sad little world you inhabit.

You cannot grasp the concept of a guy who sings what he knows will
make him a lot of money? Google "Cat Stevens"

You cannot grasp the concept of someone singing about something he believes
in?

Oh I can grasp the concept, as I can estimate the probability. If
someone really cared about their message [1] they'd give their music
away for free. Especially after they've made their first 20 million.

The reality is that music is a business that pushes whatever product
sells best, no different from selling cola drinks or cigarettes or
pornography. Music, like narcotics, is a direct pathway to a pleasure
center, and is exploited as such. They sing what sells.
[1] but it seems to me that musicians are about the worst people you
could find to make recommendations on social policy.

Well, he seems to have paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. It's a
little hard to enjoy $20 mil when you're dead.

Wasn't there somebody about 2 millennia ago that also got executed for
being a dissident? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wR6Kh.2018$B37.1833@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

Unbeliever in gods: Show me one and I'll believe in it.

Faith: I have total faith in gravity and avoid challenging my belief.

There is physical evidence for gravity, so a belief in gravity is not
faith.

It could suddenly stop working.

Faith is belief without evidence. This should be contrasted with lack of
proof. Proof is rarely possible in science, and is not a requirement of
science. Beliefs without proof is completely reasonable. We just need
sufficient evidence to hold a belief as a "correct"

Beliefs without proof lead to questions of what to believe in.

"I believe god is a blue spheroid. You believe god is a purple cylinder.
Which is correct?"

 

[Lord Garth]

"Esther & Fester Bestertester" <not@me.really> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C21EEEAB0005FB58F01826C8@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

Maybe I don't understand switch terminology, but I thought SPST means
single
throw (2 positions, ie. on-off) and SPDT means double-throw (3 positions,
ie.
on-off-on).

This catalog page show many switches with both terms, but mixing xST with
2-
and 3-positions. Same with xDT term.

http://tinyurl.com/36petb

Is my understanding incorrect? Or is this page all screwed up?

FBt

You're partially correct re SPDT excepting that if it has a center off
position,
the switch would be labeled as such. Example: Single Pole Double Throw
center off.

The poles are the armature or internal moving portion and a throw is the
non-moving contactor that receive a pole.

 

[Esther & Fester Bestertes]

The poles are the armature or internal moving portion and a throw is the
non-moving contactor that receive a pole.

So the term "throw" has nothing to do with the positions, or "stops" that you
go through when moving the actuator (handle)?

FBt

 

[Lord Garth]

"Esther & Fester Bestertester" <not@me.really> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C21EFC8E00093CAAF04886C8@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

The poles are the armature or internal moving portion and a throw is the
non-moving contactor that receive a pole.

So the term "throw" has nothing to do with the positions, or "stops" that
you
go through when moving the actuator (handle)?

FBt

The throw has only to do with the number of positions where the pole can
complete a circuit. The off positions are not counted.

 

[SBS]

Ian Bell (ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk) ha scritto:

::: Suggestions re. learning?

:: The answer is strongly application dependent.


Right!