Sample Community Service Letter For Court

Science homemade icing and obvious truisms drenched beaches

days ago, to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, we could see in the news as pointing to a few years, rising sea levels as a result of the "global warming" would affect English coast (the English coasts are affected by other problems, not only due to global warming, but from the point of view of the media seems not to matter too much).
that made me remember an old home physics experiment.

Melting "ice caps"
vessel
The simple experiment is entertaining and very educational. Illustrates much about the nature of water also is achievable by anyone (regardless of race, sex and religion, as they are fashionable constitutions and rights issues, lol, take the opportunity to speak).
Let us take a bottle, if it can be graded best (if not, nothing happens) and llenémoslo with a certain amount of water. If the bottle is graduated, look at the height of the Let us note the water column and on paper. If not, make a mark on the bottle.
Once done, let's get a certain amount of water in the bottle (not all) and congelémosla. The remaining water was preserved in the same bottle.
Like cooking programs, we'll skip the step of describing the wait for water to freeze, because in that way is a lot of freedom: each one can be entertained as you like waiting for water to cool.
Once the water is frozen, gather them and throw ice cubes into the bottle, and note how far the water level.
In this experiment, we see that the water level in the glass when we only have water never exceeds the water level of the two water-ice system (For the same mass, of course).
Why does this happen? As we know from childhood: the liquid water is denser than the solid, ice. This implies that for the same body of water, ice take up more than water. This is related to the crystalline structure of ice (ice would be more accurate to say I, which is the ice crystal structure in nature, but they know more ways in which ice can crystallize) is such that the spacing between water molecules are greater than when liquid.

Once the experiment, we heat the ice and see how easy (in terms of time and energy) that is melting the ice and leads us and costs the water cool and freeze, but that's another story we do not care now.

vessel to Earth. The melting of Arctic

The Arctic Circle, the circle limited by geographic Siberia, Greenland and Canada, is a huge block of ice floating on water. As defined for days on "The Edge of the impossible" physical geographer Eduardo Martinez de Pison, is a "Mediterranean ice." A great way to describe it because, unlike the Antarctic (where we have a landmass covered with ice) is a real sea, instead of water is ice. A large cube floating in a glass.
Now we can realize the implications of it, just seemingly innocent home physics experiment that we see above. The melting of the Arctic, in principle, has no implications for sea level rise, in any case, would imply a decline, as the water would occupy less volume.
What really matters, from the perspective of sea level rise is the melting of large ice sheets of Antarctica and glaciers, now in a recession, associated with large mountain ranges (Andes, Alps, Himalaya , ...). These are what have implications for sea level, it does not forget that represent 1.5% of Earth's water (not enough, but exclude seawater, which is 97%, we began to realize what actually represent in terms of quantity, because the river water is 0.0001 and the atmospheric water vapor, the 0.001).
Another thing to discuss is the following fact: the bodies expand when heated. And water is no exception. Although the thermal expansion for water is not very clear, given the enormous amount of water in the oceans, a rise in temperature a few degrees centigrade means a rise of sea water level of many centimeters.

Finally I would stress something else: that the Arctic thawing is irrelevant, it means that I get according to their melting. Whoever does not have implications for sea level, does not mean you have other problems: the melting of the Arctic is a huge input of freshwater to the sea, which represents major changes in their physical parameters, such as salinity, temperature, point freezing ... This has important implications for the environment, weather, and may even, in ocean currents.
In this regard, a geologist paleoclimatologist of Columbia University noted that, paradoxically, a thaw important in the Arctic caused by an increase in temperature was responsible for an episode of sudden, intense glaciation, known as "Younger Dryas" años.Pero 12,000 years as the narrator said at the end of Conan: "That's another history. "

Dont Have Product Number For Quickbooks

I guess we've all seen the television pictures of the Madrid skyscraper fire, the Hotel Windsor. "
Fortunately, there were no human casualties. For this reason, I dare to open a topic in a tone of joke about this desatre, economic (less bad than just that.)
And when we saw the television news about this incident I could not help laughing more than one occasion to the platitudes that were said.
As an initial example. In one of the news that he commented that experts said it was better that the "building falls on itself." I do not need to be skilled: not going to be better than to collapse on the surrounding buildings, releasing quantities of debris and destroying nearby buildings.
But more strange was that we saw in an interview that a journalist was a professor of structures, which asked him something like (not all words of text): "How is it possible that an office building blaze , whether in an office building there that could flammable burning? "To which the professor replied saying that there is much office paper that burns but fine. It was worth seeing the face of the journalist realize the gambazo he had made with the question.
Also, in one of these talk shows (yes, these where he meets a group of people who believed themselves humanists renaissanee, think they have the right to speak freely about everything), one of the cronies said, "It's clear that systems Fire prevention has not worked properly ... "Yeah, do not argue. Is evident. Especially in view of the many images that had been broadcast all weekend week where you could see the burning building, and the building without a façade ... Mind you, if you do not get to say, I had always thought it had worked.
In other news, a correspondent said: "It seems that the building will be demolished from top to bottom." I think it's obvious are not going to demolish from the bottom to fall on them.
the end and leave most of all I could hear platitudes regarding this issue. Finally, I will play a departure from the mouth of the mayor of Madrid. In a press conference I heard him say: "The demolition is irreversible." I think by definition of demolition in our universe, all demolitions are irreversible. I do not know if Mr Gallardón aware of other universes where the second antiley reigns of thermodynamics, and entropy decrease rather than increase. Or perhaps he thought that as the fire seemed a hell, like Maxwell's demon would run making mischief. But I think I should have said is "The demolition is inevitable," but irreversible.
Well if I said I left for the end is, obviously meant that she had the post.

Jardine Enterprise Biella Crib

Falling severe, "Apollo 15" and the speed of the rivers

Before the sixteenth century, before modern science was born from the hand of unique genius as Galileo or Newton (say a few names), science (and physics in particular) was an activity largely reflective. Physics was a physical away from experimentation (this does not mean that prior to the fifteenth century there had been great observers and experimenters, one example, Archimedes). During the Middle Ages, the prevailing thought was Aristotle was the last word of knowledge.
Aristotelian physics (it was Aristotle who coined the name of physics) had some pretty strange ideas in relation to the movement of the stars and the movement of bodies.
a particular idea was the free fall of bodies (the vertical drop of a body from a height). To Aristotelian physics, the decline was faster the more had a body mass. This idea was wrong. But it was assumed, in part (leaving aside the weight that had Aristotle) \u200b\u200bby the absence of experimentation.
However, fortunately for humanity, in the sixteenth century came the great Galileo to help us, and introduced full experimentation in science.
In fact, we now know, thanks to Galileo, that if we drop two objects of different mass from the same height in a space that no air (to avoid friction with air) the two once they reach the ground. The free fall of a body does not depend on its mass.
is said that to demonstrate this fact, Galileo dropped various objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But as they fell very fast, he managed to slow the fall radically changing the design of the experiment, and that's when he made his famous experience of a slope.

Physics home of the "Apollo"

During the Apollo 15 mission, the mission commander, Dave R. Scott, took the almost total emptiness of the "atmosphere" to emulate Galileo lunar. For this he dropped from the same height a hammer and a feather: indeed, the two arrived at once (this proves to two things: that Galileo was right and that conspiaranoicos are wrong when they say that man walked on the moon). Before the cameras of the mission, it was proven once again that Galileo was right. Eppur si muove.
Basics
energy
What is energy? From a mechanical point of view, energy can be defined as a quantity that quantifies the ability of a body to develop strength, or to develop a movement.
With this definition in mind, is easy to understand that a body in motion, for the simple fact of moving, will have an energy associated with its state of motion. Indeed, this is what is called kinetic energy . And this energy is linked to the speed of the body.
However, this does not mean that a body at rest has no energy. If we recall the definition, says the "ability of a body to develop a movement." Whether a body is at rest, this does not mean it is not able to move or move to another body. Even the strong need rest!
Thus, the bodies will have, apart from the kinetic energy, an energy related to their ability to rest stop. This is what is called potential energy (ironic, that these terms of modern physics have their rationale in the distinction made Aristotle between power and act.) Example of potential energy
: suppose the hammer dropped the astronaut. At the time that the hammer is in the hand of an astronaut, not moving, the hammer has a potential energy, which depends on the distance separating it from the ground. The moment you let go, and falls, hits the ground with a speed: at the moment only has kinetic energy. All the potential energy becomes kinetic. The body has developed a movement, and potential energy in a way, was measuring how much movement we would be able to perform.
This serves to introduce another basic concept of energy: the principle of conservation of energy. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Can only be converted into other forms of energy. Sticking with the example of the hammer, the hammer was initially a potential energy, upon reaching the ground, all that potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. And after the impact, all that kinetic energy is converted into heat, more energy degraded.
Now we can move to the last thread of this article.

Where a river is faster?

A river is a natural system can be considered divided into 3 parts:
- The current high birth. That's where the river reaches its highest slopes, where we are waterfalls and rapids, where there is turbulence, where there is higher incidence of erosion ...
- The middle: where there is a balance between erosion and sedimentation. The slope is lower than in the previous case, and there is no such violent phenomena such as waterfalls.
- The lower course, the mouth. Here the river is nearly horizontal, and there will be a predominance of sedimentation processes.

Now I propose a riddle to a potential reader, who does not intend to spend a long time. Given the above, of those 3 parts, where the river will go faster?

In principle, observation and intuition suggests that where the river is more rapid in the upper, there are more pending, we fast, waterfalls, ... And in the mouth has to go slowly: the river is horizontal, and also that we can see that deposited material.
However, quite the opposite: the higher speeds are reached the river during low and high during the lowest.
Consider a water molecule in the birth of the river, there will be a certain speed (and thus kinetic energy) but also have a potential energy associated with its height relative to sea level (which remember, We measured the ability of the molecule and move down to the ground). When this molecule reaches the lower course of the entire potential energy was in the upper will have become kinetic, thus by definition of kinetic energy, the river will increase speed.

really the fact that the velocity is greater in the lower course contributes not only the issue of energy (in fact, really no influence, because the river bed varies from one area of \u200b\u200bthe river to another section of the channel varies, vary flow, ...) in the upper water follows paths turbulent, erratic, and although the speed of a stream of water can be very high, the various streams of water follow different paths, sometimes even some threads going upstream, upstream. In the lower reaches, however, is laminar flow, all streams of water follow the same direction. Consequently, the average velocity of flow in the lower reaches will be greater than the upper.
Anyway, not all ideas in Earth Sciences are intuitive. Good

Menaupausal Discharge

Starting from scratch: the spider touches ...

everyone. Many days have passed since my last post. In particular about a month, but I've gone busy. If this blog was a frequent visitor, I think I lost. So this is like starting over.
The other day I had a long conversation with a good friend of mine, who loves science and engineering, and above all, eat the head, and I consider a puzzle that really caught my attention. Therefore, we emplazco to share with me this curiosity.

The thing is as follows. Imagine a spider (in case there are any discerning biologist, will give a sort to be satisfied: Tegenaria domestica, or whatever it is, the house spider, for instance). The spider in question is in a room that is shaped like a perfect cube. And is located in the center of the wall (if there is any love of decoration, for less than a biologist, I shall content: the room is unfurnished, and is papered white, the floor, a tiled white also). Now the spider just wants to go downtown on the opposite wall, and wants to do by the shortest route. For some strange reason, the spider does not want to jump, or do funny things. Which way has to follow? However, it has to lose in a straight line, keep walking in a straight line on the floor, and up the opposite wall to the center. Put finest: the spider will move at any time in a plane perpendicular to the vertical line passing through its position. ! Wing, Fried phrase that has been!
far easier. Now the second part. Now the spider, rather than in the previous position, the distance "d" above the center. And instead of wanting to go downtown on the opposite wall, to go to a point on another wall is a distance "d" below the center of the front wall. What path has to follow? The most logical (at least, what I said, but if my system is not processing information-lease brain, is that today I am a bit petulant, works very logic) is a way analogous to anteriot. No, the answer I gave my friend (from here I send a greeting) is as follows: the spider goes in a straight line, walking through the roof, low the ground, walks on the ground and reaches the wall. Or something. Because my friend immediately to the question ametrello most puzzling question: how can mathematically deduce the shortest path?
As answer the question escapes my chances, I propose the eventual challenge to any reader of this post, that if the time to spare and like that of mathematics, try to solve it.

When I raised the puzzle to my little sister (the puzzle itself, not part of the mathematical proof, of course) gave me the most intelligent response you can do: there is no spider think. The time of writing I had saved have thought like her.
A greeting.