I'm Andrew Hubble, i'm a graduated alumni, i am curerntly attending Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology    (KWM)

If you need to contact me, you can reach me through my email, or if urgent, you may call (please do not call at ungodly hours) you may obtain this information at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aragon_robotics (all you need to do is sign in and go to the members list, the information will be there.    (JLE)

Please correct for SpellingAndGrammar Errors (don't edit grammar if it is in a quote, grammar errors are the highlights of some of these quotes)    (JLF)

This year (2006-2007) is my forth and final year on the team.Not much to say about that.    (JL1)

And, If you haven't noticed, I like to quote people...    (JH2)

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid-term. The answer was so "profound" that the Professor shared it with colleagues, and the sharing obviously hasn't ceased... Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?    (I39)

Most of the students wrote Proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:    (I3A)

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let us look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.    (I3B)

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it?    (I3C)

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you.", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."    (I3D)

This student received the only A.    (I3E)

Here is the report on our SCIENTIFIC CORRECTNESS SURVEY #2. The question was:    (KOD)

Is faster-than-light travel possible?    (KOE)

This survey drew an onslaught of opinions.    (KOF)

The vote was a landslide (72%) for the YES side. Thus, another controversy is put to rest. Henceforth, it will be scientifically correct to believe that faster-than-light travel is possible.    (KOG)

Opinions ranged from positive to negative, and from simple ("Yes") to hideously complex. While the results are interesting, the variety of methods used to obtain them is dazzling.    (KOH)

				*	*	*    (KOI)

Some readers used fuzzy logic: I have never really believed that light actually goes at the speed of light. Have we any proof? I worked out that it should go at root two times the speed of light (c) making the constant itself irrelevant.    (KOJ)

	--Graeme Winter
				*	*	*    (KOK)

Other readers used higher-level fuzzy logic: This is an interesting question, coincidentally I was driving through a Minnesota blizzard last week when my wife told me to slow down because I was 'over driving my headlights.' I was so excited I almost spilled my coffee because I thought that she meant I was traveling faster than the speed of light, but then I realized that she meant that because of the poor conditions, the stopping distance for my car was greater than my visibility.    (KOL)

	--Don Berryman
				*	*	*    (KOM)

One reader used tangential logic: Since light has yet to dawn on school boards here in Texas, we are unable to answer this question.    (KON)

	--Julia Frugoli
				*	*	*    (KOO)

Some took a theoretical bent:    (KOP)

Yes, but no matter what the destination, you always arrive at night.    (KOQ)

	--Dick Baker    (KOR)

My fraternity brother Charles Jones (MIT '63) created a faster- than-light vehicle in 1960. A beam of light is reflected in a mirror. Approaching the mirror, the light's velocity is (+)c. After reflection it is -c. Ergo at the instant of reflection, its velocity is 0. When the vehicle passes the mirror, it goes faster than light.    (KOS)

	--A. D. Snider
				*	*	*    (KOT)

Others relied on advanced theories:    (KOU)

Faster than light travel IS possible but only if you are facing backwards.    (KOV)

	--Charles Belair    (KOW)

It depends on how fast the light is going.    (KOX)

	--Michael Castleman
				*	*	*    (KOY)

Some readers cited empirical evidence:    (KOZ)

Of course. It is demonstrated every week in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". They also demonstrate crystal power, telepathy, reversal of the polarity of neutron fluxes in starboard power couplings, and other facets of modern science.    (KP0)

	--Stephen Trier    (KP1)

No. No no no no no no. Most people think Star Trek has solved the problem of faster-than-light travel. I am much more fascinated by Star Trek's solution to the sound-in-a-vacuum problem.    (KP2)

	--Karen Lingel    (KP3)

"Yes!" E-mail uses delivery through electrical circuits, therefore traveling at the speed of light (one of the reasons for its popularity over the historically traditional US Postal "Service"). America OnLine uses these same electrical circuits. It is well known that almost anything travels faster than AOL these days.    (KP4)

	--G. Borochoff
				*	*	*    (KP5)

Not everyone relied on intellectual arguments. Two readers, Charlie Cerf and Peter Thorp, sent in variants of the same classical argument:    (KP6)

	There was a young lady called Bright
	who could travel much faster than light.
	She departed one day
	in a relative way
	and returned on the previous night
				*	*	*    (KP7)

Practical experience, too, was useful in solving the question:    (KP8)

Of course faster-than-light travel is possible. However, the probability that your luggage will wind up at the wrong destination increases as the cube of the velocity.    (KP9)

	--Bob O'Hara    (KPA)

Yes. Faster than light travel is possible and can be readily demonstrated by making the mistake of having two dates show up at your place at the same time. I've done this and witnessed first hand the flight, which happens so fast that you can't see it.    (KPB)

	--P. Hughes    (KPC)

Yes, but tickets must be purchased at least three weeks in advance and a Saturday night stay is required.    (KPD)

	--Kristina Pawlikowski    (KPE)

After my cat decided it was play time at 3 AM, he was forcefully accelerated from the bed. Quickly, his velocity reached the of light resulting in a mid-air white hot flash of spontaneous combustion (matter to energy.) Conversely, all internal energies (neuroelectrical, biochemical, etc.) were converted to matter. A strange ash covered the room, very similar to scoopable litter. The other possibility is that he landed on my camera equipment and has been hiding ever since.    (KPF)

	--Don Copeland
				*	*	*    (KPG)

Finally, one response defied categorization: Of course, as a physics teacher I tell my students that faster- than-light travel is impossible, but that's just to crush their spirits.    (KPH)

	--LaNelle Ohlhausen    (KPI)

A: As we approach the speed of light, the aging process slows down. So, if the speed of light were sixty miles per hour, we would have even more people speeding, especially older people trying to stay young. As a matter of fact, physics would demand that we go faster than the speed of light. The safest thing is to drive at a steady sixty to keep time and the highway patrol off our necks. Airplanes would become obsolete in this slow light world, because you would be going so fast, relatively speaking, that you'd be back before you even left. This would make business trips unnecessary and lead to economic collapse. So, to answer your question, life, if the speed of light were sixty miles per hour, would be youthful, fast, and dark. -- Ask Dr. Science    (KPL)

Errors in our Calculations: {nid KPN}

  ...Clearly, friction played a large role in our >75%<< error {nid KPO}

in our calculations, but the force of friction alone cannot
affect much more than 5% of the experimental results.  After
pondering other things that might have also affected the
experiment, I came up with a couple things: {nid KPP}

 1) Measurement of pi.  We only used pi to 2 decimal places (3.14157 {nid KPQ}

would have given more accurate results) {nid KPR}

 2) The moon's gravitational effect.  We didn't take into effect the {nid KPS}

gravitational effect of the moon orbiting the earth.  If it can cause
tides, it can affect our experiment. {nid KPT}

 3) The book is wrong.  Who knows?  Newton lived a long time ago, {nid KPU}

before the Internet, and before highly sensitive electrical equipment.
Perhaps all the equations we used are outdated and inaccurate.  I will
write a letter to the publisher immediately when I can confirm this. {nid KPV}

 4) Gravitational pull caused by us.  My lab partner and I both exert {nid KPW}

a very tiny, but significant, gravitational attraction.  This could
have effected the pendulum in many ways, especially since we were
moving around a lot. {nid KPX}

 5) Inaccurate measurement of weight.  We never actually weighed the {nid KPY}

pendulum.  We just used the value in the book. {nid KPZ}

 6) Accumulation of dust.  During the course of the experiment, I {nid KQ0}

noticed dust accumulating on the bob of the pendulum.  Oh, wait,
frequency of a pendulum has nothing to do with mass.  Forget 5 and 6. {nid KQ1}

Well, seriously, these other potential pitfalls are still very
insignificant, so that leaves me with only one conclusion: {nid KQ2}

  My lab partner screwed up. {nid KQ3}

I take no responsibility for these errors, because I put faith in my
lab partner that he would solve the equations accurately.  In the
past, we have experienced problems with his inability to punch numbers
into his calculator in the correct order.  I also noticed him
furtively peeking over on the other lab tables.  Pardon my frankness,
but this guy is not very bright, and I don't know how I got stuck with
him.  I probably should just double check his work, but I'm sure he
would be insulted and create a scene.  I've had problems with him
in the past, and if the sole vindicator of our inaccurate lab data is,
in fact, my lab partner, this would explain the last three labs,
which, as you may recall, had errors similar in scope.    (KQ4)
    (KQ5)

It's common practice in England to ring a telephone by signaling extra
voltage across one side of the two wire circuit and ground (earth in
England). When the subscriber answers the phone, it switches to the two
wire circuit for the conversation. This method allows two parties on the
same line to be signalled without disturbing each other. {nid KQ6}

Anyway, an elderly lady with several pets called to say that her telephone
failed to ring when her friends called; and that on the few occasions when
it did ring her dog always barked first. The telephone repairman proceeded
to the scene, curious to see this psychic dog. {nid KQ7}

He climbed a nearby telephone pole, hooked in his test set, and dialed the
subscriber's house. The phone didn't ring. He tried again. The dog barked
loudly, followed by a ringing telephone. {nid KQ8}

Climbing down from the pole, the telephone repairman found:
1. A dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron {nid KQ9}

  chain and collar. {nid KQA}

2. The dog was receiving a 90 volt signalling current.
3. After several such jolts, the dog would start barking and {nid KQB}

  urinating on the ground. {nid KQC}

4. The wet ground now completed the circuit and the phone would ring. {nid KQD}

Which shows you that some problems can be fixed by just pissing on
them.    (KQG)

           IS THERE A SANTA CLAUS? (Spy Magazine, January 1990)

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of
living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects
and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only
Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since
Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist
children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million
according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census)rate of 3.5
children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at
least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different
time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to
west(which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This
is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has
1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney,
fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat
whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the
sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8
million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we
know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept),
we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2
million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least
once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc. This means that Santa's sleigh
is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For
purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses
space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional
reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming
that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds),
the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably
described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more
than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could
pull TEN TIMES the normal anoint, we cannot do the job with eight, or even
nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even
counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison
- this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air
resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as
spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer
will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short,
they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer
behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.The entire
reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa,
meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater
than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim)would be
pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's
dead now.    (KQH)

(please write below this line)    (KQF)

    (G72)