WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.869
The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license.

00:00:03.869 --> 00:00:06.571
Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue

00:00:06.571 --> 00:00:13.401
to offer high-quality educational resources for free. To make a donation or to view additional material

00:00:13.401 --> 00:00:15.294
from hundreds of MIT courses,

00:00:15.294 --> 00:00:20.554
visit MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu.

00:00:21.106 --> 00:00:26.953
Due to technical difficulties, only a portion of lecture 1 is available for viewing

00:00:26.953 --> 00:00:31.092
Welcome to Teaching College-Level Science and Engineering.

00:00:31.092 --> 00:00:36.318
Now, the title contains the word "teaching," which may spark some questions in your mind.

00:00:36.318 --> 00:00:43.906
For example, is teaching just an art? Or is it something that's just - something you're born with.

00:00:43.906 --> 00:00:49.465
In which case, either you have it or you don't have it. Well, obviously I don't believe that

00:00:49.465 --> 00:00:51.985
or I wouldn't be teaching a course on it.

00:00:51.985 --> 00:00:52.853
What would be the point?

00:00:52.853 --> 00:00:59.012
Or is it purely a science, where there's a set of equations and procedures to learn,

00:00:59.012 --> 00:01:02.073
and then all of a sudden you'll be an excellent teacher?

00:01:02.073 --> 00:01:08.838
Well, actually, it's neither and it's both. It's things that we're all born with,

00:01:08.838 --> 00:01:13.753
on the one hand, and they're also procedures and techniques, and ways of thinking

00:01:13.753 --> 00:01:17.010
that will improve how you teach, and that we can all learn.

00:01:17.010 --> 00:01:20.062
So it's a happy mix, my favorite mix,

00:01:20.062 --> 00:01:29.274
an art and a science. So, for example, another example that's an art and a science is book design.

00:01:29.274 --> 00:01:36.316
So compared for example to just pure art, painting, say modern painting, very unconstrained

00:01:36.316 --> 00:01:40.542
vs. say, biology procedures in the laboratory

00:01:40.542 --> 00:01:48.767
you know, very very closely specified. It's somewhere in between there is an art but there is, of all

00:01:48.767 --> 00:01:54.214
of the arts, of colors, of space, but they all have to

00:01:54.214 --> 00:02:01.955
be used together to achieve a particular purpose. So, again, there are some beautifully designed books and

00:02:01.955 --> 00:02:05.859
some not so beautifully designed books. And there are principles behind that that we can use to design good books.

00:02:07.655 --> 00:02:11.917
Simiilarly, there are principles we can use to design good teaching.

00:02:11.932 --> 00:02:15.817
So this is the whole point of this semester is to design good teaching and how you do that.

00:02:17.155 --> 00:02:20.138
And rather than give you a big long theory about it,

00:02:20.138 --> 00:02:22.505
because actually there isn't really theory

00:02:22.505 --> 00:02:26.425
so much in the equivalent to say Einstein's theory of relativity,

00:02:26.425 --> 00:02:29.145
but there's principles to learn.

00:02:29.252 --> 00:02:31.652
The best way to learn those principles is

00:02:32.360 --> 00:02:34.044
with an example.

00:02:34.044 --> 00:02:35.989
So what we're gonna do today is

00:02:35.989 --> 00:02:40.636
I'm going to do an example of teaching with you.

00:02:40.636 --> 00:02:46.443
We're gonna do it slightly sped-up version of what we'd normally do

00:02:46.443 --> 00:02:49.262
say if we were actually using this example in a class.

00:02:49.262 --> 00:02:52.181
Then we're gonna analyze why it was done that way.

00:02:52.181 --> 00:02:56.010
and from an analysis, general principles of teaching will come out

00:02:56.010 --> 00:02:59.044
that will be address throughout the semester

00:02:59.044 --> 00:03:03.650
and they'll be addressed in the context of particular tasks,

00:03:03.650 --> 00:03:08.124
for example, how to make slides that are useful for teaching.

00:03:08.124 --> 00:03:10.822
How to use a blackboard.

00:03:10.822 --> 00:03:12.608
How to teach equations.

00:03:12.655 --> 00:03:14.700
How to design a whole course.

00:03:14.700 --> 00:03:16.059
How to make problems.

00:03:16.059 --> 00:03:20.481
So all of those tasks will be the week-by-week subjects

00:03:20.481 --> 00:03:23.912
and in each task, all the principles that we're gonna talk about now

00:03:23.912 --> 00:03:30.978
will show up in those tasks and you'll see the principles illustrated repeatedly.

00:03:30.978 --> 00:03:35.198
So, the problem. One of my favorites,

00:03:36.737 --> 00:03:38.751
so these are two cones

00:03:39.874 --> 00:03:42.693
one is -- has twice the dimensions of the other cones.

00:03:42.693 --> 00:03:46.634
So let me show you how I made the cones.

00:03:50.388 --> 00:03:55.183
So I printed out a circle and just cut out

00:03:55.183 --> 00:03:57.574
one quarter of the circle

00:03:58.190 --> 00:04:00.627
and then I taped this edge to that edge.

00:04:05.812 --> 00:04:10.282
Or in mathematician speak, I identified the edges

00:04:10.983 --> 00:04:14.007
which I now know means I taped the edges together.

00:04:14.145 --> 00:04:16.295
and then you get a cone like that.

00:04:17.034 --> 00:04:20.761
So this cone and the other cone were cut out of the same sheet of paper

00:04:20.761 --> 00:04:25.399
except this one has twice the linear dimensions in its circle.

00:04:25.399 --> 00:04:32.349
This circle was seven centimeters in radius and this is three and a half centimeters in radius.

00:04:33.841 --> 00:04:36.033
Other than that, they're the same.

00:04:36.033 --> 00:04:42.301
The question is which one has the higher terminal of velocity or are they more comparable.

00:04:42.778 --> 00:04:43.647
So the question is this.

00:04:44.801 --> 00:04:47.557
I'm gonna drop them and the question is

00:04:47.557 --> 00:04:50.871
what is the ratio of their terminal velocities?

00:05:01.625 --> 00:05:06.473
So the ratio of the big cone's terminal velocity to the small cone's terminal velocity

00:05:06.473 --> 00:05:13.947
is equals to what and you get choices along this axis

00:05:13.947 --> 00:05:38.372
So here is...

00:05:38.372 --> 00:05:42.268
Okay, so those are the five regions to choose from.

00:05:46.914 --> 00:05:49.135
So you have five choices for the ratio

00:05:49.135 --> 00:05:51.411
roughly one quarter

00:05:51.411 --> 00:05:53.820
some range here, because nothing's exact

00:05:53.820 --> 00:05:55.974
and we're definitely not gonna do an exact experiment.

00:05:56.912 --> 00:06:01.595
Roughly one half, roughly one, roughly two, or roughly four.

00:06:01.595 --> 00:06:04.675
So does everyone understand the question?

00:06:04.675 --> 00:06:06.234
You're gonna get to try it yourself.

00:06:08.541 --> 00:06:10.237
Question about the question

00:06:10.503 --> 00:06:13.939
I don't know if you could restate the question... actually there was a signing sheet going around... and I sorta lost it.

00:06:16.796 --> 00:06:20.047
So, uh, yeah, can I restate the question, no problem.

00:06:20.047 --> 00:06:22.276
So I'm gonna drop them

00:06:22.568 --> 00:06:24.203
just like this no tricks,

00:06:24.203 --> 00:06:27.529
I'm not gonna flip this one around or anything.

00:06:27.529 --> 00:06:30.858
And the question is, what's the ratio of their terminal speeds.

00:06:30.858 --> 00:06:33.439
So right away, as soon as you let go of them,

00:06:33.439 --> 00:06:36.050
they come to a steady speed,

00:06:36.050 --> 00:06:37.808
which is their terminal velocity.

00:06:37.808 --> 00:06:42.202
And the question is how do the terminal speeds of the big one and the small one differ.

00:06:42.833 --> 00:06:46.136
So in particular, the question is what's the ratio?

00:06:46.136 --> 00:06:47.975
And there's five choices for them.

00:06:49.067 --> 00:06:49.925
Okay.

00:06:49.925 --> 00:06:51.272
That help?

00:06:51.272 --> 00:06:53.981
-Yes, and what were the dimensions of them again.

00:06:53.981 --> 00:07:00.328
-So this guy is -- he was cut out of a circle who was 7 centimeters in radius.

00:07:00.328 --> 00:07:05.795
And this guy was cut out of a circle who was 3.5 centimeters in radius.

00:07:05.795 --> 00:07:09.997
And then I was also very careful to use-- do this right?--

00:07:09.997 --> 00:07:15.247
I used half the width of tape on the small guy as I did on the big guy

00:07:15.247 --> 00:07:21.086
just to get it really very perfect scale.

00:07:21.086 --> 00:07:27.163
Any questions about the question?

00:07:27.179 --> 00:07:31.185
Okay, so think for yourself for about 30 seconds or so

00:07:31.185 --> 00:07:34.524
just to induct yourself into the problem

00:07:34.524 --> 00:07:36.290
and then we'll take a vote.

00:07:36.290 --> 00:08:13.754
And then you'll have a chance to discuss it with each other.

00:08:18.739 --> 00:08:20.396
Okay, let's just take a vote

00:08:20.396 --> 00:08:29.289
so I understand I haven't given all of you enough time to come up with an exact answer or calculate anything.

00:08:29.320 --> 00:08:34.786
So let's just get a straw poll and then you'll have a chance to argue about it with your neighbor.

00:08:34.786 --> 00:08:38.443
So who votes for 1/4 which is--

00:08:38.443 --> 00:08:42.124
so let's see-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

00:08:44.139 --> 00:08:47.955
Who votes for 1/2?

00:08:47.955 --> 00:08:54.468
[counts] 12

00:08:54.468 --> 00:08:57.804
Who votes for C?

00:08:57.804 --> 00:09:01.489
About 22.

00:09:01.489 --> 00:09:04.276
Who votes for D?

00:09:04.276 --> 00:09:05.622
No takers.

00:09:05.622 --> 00:09:06.914
No takers for D.

00:09:06.914 --> 00:09:11.133
How about E?

00:09:11.133 --> 00:09:13.362
Okay, so

00:09:13.362 --> 00:09:15.378
now find a neighbor or two,

00:09:15.378 --> 00:09:16.723
one or two neighbors,

00:09:16.723 --> 00:09:18.519
introduce yourself to your neighbor,

00:09:18.519 --> 00:09:21.528
and also by the way, unless you're taking notes on your laptop,

00:09:21.528 --> 00:09:27.303
if you could close your laptop, that would be very helpful for the purpose of discussion in this whole

00:09:27.303 --> 00:09:28.041
course.

00:09:28.703 --> 00:09:31.954
So find a neighbor or two, introduce yourself,

00:09:31.954 --> 00:09:37.654
you'll be given a chance to meet graduate students from across te institute,

00:09:37.654 --> 00:09:39.746
and try to convince them about your answer.

00:09:39.746 --> 00:09:40.912
Especially if you have a different answer.

00:09:40.912 --> 00:09:45.070
Or if you happen to share an answer, try to figure out why you're sure of it

00:09:45.070 --> 00:09:48.161
or if you're not sure of it, settle...

00:09:48.161 --> 00:09:50.691
So, discussion time.

00:09:50.691 --> 00:09:54.361
And if you have any questions that come up as you're discussing,

00:09:54.361 --> 00:09:56.474
raise your hand and I'll come and wonder over.

00:09:58.519 --> 00:10:01.456
Okay, so meanwhile I also handed out

00:10:01.456 --> 00:10:04.323
feedback sheets for the end of the session

00:10:04.323 --> 00:10:07.404
which I'll ask you to spend a minute on at the end.

00:10:07.404 --> 00:10:11.476
You'll notice one of the question is what's the most confusing thing?

00:10:11.476 --> 00:10:14.515
So if anything really confusing comes up during the whole session,

00:10:14.515 --> 00:10:17.317
you can just put it right there, you don't have to wait until the end,

00:10:17.317 --> 00:10:19.648
or if there's something you really liked or hated,

00:10:19.648 --> 00:10:22.456
that's question 2, you can put whenever to come up.

00:10:22.733 --> 00:10:26.756
But, vote #2 and then we'll take some reasons...

00:10:26.756 --> 00:10:29.435
so...

00:10:29.435 --> 00:10:32.499
One quarter.

00:10:32.499 --> 00:10:36.366
One, two, three.

00:10:36.366 --> 00:10:39.363
Okay, four.

00:10:39.363 --> 00:10:41.942
One half.

00:10:41.942 --> 00:10:44.234
Halves don't have it.

00:10:44.234 --> 00:10:48.374
There's one... okay great. 4, 5, 6.

00:10:49.250 --> 00:10:50.902
Equall.

00:10:51.764 --> 00:10:54.153
Let's call it 30.

00:10:54.153 --> 00:10:58.180
Two

00:10:58.180 --> 00:11:00.830
and four.

00:11:00.830 --> 00:11:03.258
Okay, so

00:11:03.258 --> 00:11:04.943
thanks for the votes.

00:11:04.943 --> 00:11:07.037
Let's take reasons for any of them.

00:11:07.037 --> 00:11:09.736
I'll take reasons for any of them, I'll put them up here.

00:11:09.736 --> 00:11:11.501
You don't even have to agree with the reasons,

00:11:11.501 --> 00:11:14.482
just something you guys discussed and something that was plausible.

00:11:14.482 --> 00:11:17.473
-C...

00:11:17.473 --> 00:11:20.039
-Oh....

00:11:21.287 --> 00:11:23.846
-When you do these activities,

00:11:23.846 --> 00:11:27.652
there's always some... [indistinct]

00:11:27.652 --> 00:11:30.283
I want to know what you would do in that kind of situation.

00:11:30.283 --> 00:11:33.580
-So, you're hmm...

00:11:33.580 --> 00:11:35.388
[laughter] I'm not sure how to phrase this.

00:11:35.388 --> 00:11:37.764
Uh...

00:11:37.764 --> 00:11:39.587
Let me just take other comments.

00:11:39.587 --> 00:11:41.802
[laughter]

00:11:41.802 --> 00:11:43.613
I'll come to it afterwards.

00:11:43.613 --> 00:11:45.264
Other comments

00:11:45.264 --> 00:11:46.960
for any of the reasons.

00:11:46.960 --> 00:11:48.475
So again, it doesn't have to be anything you necessarily believe

00:11:48.475 --> 00:11:50.277
but things that are plausible

00:11:50.277 --> 00:11:54.130
and that's actually more instructive than what you think is for sure right,

00:11:54.130 --> 00:11:58.124
because you're trying to figure out what might be true and you're expanding

00:11:58.124 --> 00:11:59.686
the ways you're thinking.

00:11:59.686 --> 00:12:06.159
-C, because they have identical mass to certain...

00:12:06.159 --> 00:12:11.769
-C, so mass-to-area ratio is the same.

00:12:13.707 --> 00:12:19.028
Okay, can people think of plausible reasons against that argument?

00:12:20.736 --> 00:12:21.690
Yes.

00:12:21.690 --> 00:12:23.847
-I have no idea what the actual formula is.

00:12:23.847 --> 00:12:24.644
-Right.

00:12:24.644 --> 00:12:29.645
-There was a square there...

00:12:29.645 --> 00:12:32.619
-Right, so I'll call this not C.

00:12:32.619 --> 00:12:36.888
So supposedly, formual actually depended on the square root of A

00:12:36.888 --> 00:12:39.565
or something like that.

00:12:39.565 --> 00:12:44.198
You know maybe---- say, one chance out of three that it has A to the first power here.

00:12:44.198 --> 00:12:48.058
It could have A to the 1/2 or 8 to the 2.

00:12:48.628 --> 00:12:50.902
So, could be...

00:12:57.410 --> 00:12:58.787
A to the k

00:12:58.787 --> 00:13:03.010
M over A to the K for K not equal to one.

00:13:03.010 --> 00:13:05.021
Okay, others.

00:13:05.021 --> 00:13:12.074
4 against C, intuitive reasons, or for any of the others.

00:13:17.766 --> 00:13:20.642
Okay, so hopefully that's...

00:13:20.688 --> 00:13:23.596
-[indistinct]

00:13:23.596 --> 00:13:27.683
...that air resistance goes with the area

00:13:27.683 --> 00:13:31.278
and the gravitational force...

00:13:31.278 --> 00:13:33.999
-Okay, so let's see.

00:13:33.999 --> 00:13:42.395
F drag partial to area and weight.

00:13:42.395 --> 00:13:44.073
So that's the argument for which choice?

00:13:44.073 --> 00:13:46.683
For C, okay.

00:13:47.961 --> 00:13:51.131
How do you know that the drab scales are the area.

00:13:51.131 --> 00:13:54.941
Maybe the scales with the square root of area.

00:13:57.818 --> 00:14:02.669
Any argument pro or con?

00:14:05.115 --> 00:14:07.681
Okay, yeah.

00:14:07.681 --> 00:14:14.655
-scales with the area...you can just break it up...

00:14:14.655 --> 00:14:18.525
-Okay, so there's a ....

00:14:18.525 --> 00:14:22.993
So for this, let's say there's a ... for subdividing

00:14:22.993 --> 00:14:26.291
I'll just know that is subdividing.

00:14:31.552 --> 00:14:34.432
Okay, yeah.

00:14:34.432 --> 00:14:38.405
-Some weird shape... and then go to the rest of the pieces so...

00:14:38.405 --> 00:14:42.950
-So it may depend on the division--I mean, the geometry,

00:14:42.950 --> 00:14:45.719
so I'll put that here as geometry.

00:14:52.134 --> 00:14:54.506
What else might it depend on?

00:14:54.521 --> 00:15:00.108
For example, is air resistance say always proportional to area?

00:15:02.108 --> 00:15:03.293
Hmm.

00:15:04.667 --> 00:15:05.712
Yeah?

00:15:07.045 --> 00:15:09.045
-...Depend on the material of the surface.

00:15:09.045 --> 00:15:12.338
-Okay, so it might depend on the material

00:15:12.338 --> 00:15:16.828
and it certainly does, which is actually why I was careful

00:15:16.828 --> 00:15:18.883
to construct them out of the same piece of paper,

00:15:18.883 --> 00:15:21.735
so let me put this.

00:15:21.735 --> 00:15:24.840
Material...

00:15:24.840 --> 00:15:28.079
So the surface roughness.

00:15:28.079 --> 00:15:30.964
[indisctinct question]

00:15:33.564 --> 00:15:36.005
-Okay, so whether they fall vertically or downward.

00:15:36.005 --> 00:15:37.367
Yeah, that's true.

00:15:37.367 --> 00:15:40.045
So it might depend on the way I drop them.

00:15:40.045 --> 00:15:42.228
So to make us not have to worry about that,

00:15:42.228 --> 00:15:46.812
I'll just drop them simultaniously, pointing downward.

00:15:46.827 --> 00:15:52.540
So the fall configuration.

00:15:52.601 --> 00:15:57.024
So there's all these other variables.

00:15:57.024 --> 00:15:59.362
Okay, so let's do the experiment and then I'll come back to your question.

00:15:59.362 --> 00:16:05.950
Okay, so let's do the experiement this way

00:16:09.970 --> 00:16:14.408
so I'll stand on the table

00:16:14.408 --> 00:16:23.104
and pray that I have matching socks on with is sort of 80% these days.

00:16:23.104 --> 00:16:26.363
It's increased.

00:16:26.363 --> 00:16:28.155
And I will drop them on the count of 3.

00:16:28.155 --> 00:16:29.336
1--

00:16:29.336 --> 00:16:33.861
Are they both, the points, about the same level?

00:16:33.861 --> 00:16:35.775
They look sort of to me but

00:16:35.775 --> 00:16:40.906
my depth perception is actually quite bad

00:16:40.906 --> 00:16:43.312
so is that about equal?

00:16:43.312 --> 00:16:46.978
Okay, so 1, 2, 3.

00:16:46.978 --> 00:16:48.709
Simulateous.

00:16:48.709 --> 00:16:52.895
Okay, so there you have choice C.

00:16:52.956 --> 00:16:55.246
Interesting consequence of that.

00:16:55.246 --> 00:16:58.300
So what that shows is that

00:16:58.300 --> 00:17:01.837
drag in this case is proportional to area.

00:17:01.837 --> 00:17:05.512
It turns out, that that's not always the case.

00:17:05.512 --> 00:17:08.421
So drag very often,

00:17:08.421 --> 00:17:10.260
well, not very often in everyday life,

00:17:10.260 --> 00:17:16.178
but very easily can be proportional to...

00:17:20.835 --> 00:17:23.125
proportional to size.

00:17:23.125 --> 00:17:26.644
And you don't know ahead of time which one it's gonna be.

00:17:26.644 --> 00:17:30.851
So it vari--- so it turns out at slow speeds,

00:17:30.851 --> 00:17:31.687
low Reynold's number

00:17:31.687 --> 00:17:32.679
this is true.

00:17:32.679 --> 00:17:34.953
Turns out at high Reynold's number, this is true.

00:17:34.969 --> 00:17:37.409
And this is the simplest experiment to show that.

00:17:37.409 --> 00:17:40.526
So what this shows is that drag is proportional to area

00:17:40.526 --> 00:17:42.895
so with the same velocity,

00:17:42.895 --> 00:17:50.055
the extra weight is balanced by the extra drag force.

00:17:50.055 --> 00:17:52.445
Exactly, four to one.

00:17:52.445 --> 00:18:00.349
And what that shows now--the consequence--is that

00:18:02.918 --> 00:18:07.663
I'm gonna replace the proportional with a twittle.

00:18:07.663 --> 00:18:09.286
So it has an area in it,

00:18:09.286 --> 00:18:12.057
so I'm gonna get something with the correct units in it.

00:18:12.057 --> 00:18:13.988
So it has an area in it

00:18:13.988 --> 00:18:16.440
and now you have left the play with

00:18:16.440 --> 00:18:20.156
density, speed, and viscosity.

00:18:20.156 --> 00:18:23.814
So now let's actually construct the drag force as a result of that.

00:18:23.814 --> 00:18:27.499
So we know from the experiment, it's proportional to area.

00:18:28.392 --> 00:18:29.763
And now among these,

00:18:29.763 --> 00:18:34.152
so this here is the kinematic viscosity,

00:18:34.152 --> 00:18:39.887
which is the one you may be more familiar with divided by row, the density.

00:18:39.887 --> 00:18:44.214
So, we got to put some of these guys in, some of these guys in,

00:18:44.214 --> 00:18:46.022
and some of these guys in.

00:18:46.022 --> 00:18:49.091
And let the units come in as a force.

00:18:49.091 --> 00:18:51.842
Well, one of them we can do right away.

00:18:51.842 --> 00:18:57.004
There's how many powers of mass over on this side?

00:18:57.004 --> 00:18:58.842
In a force, just one.

00:18:58.842 --> 00:19:00.142
Right, and there's one here.

00:19:00.142 --> 00:19:02.694
So we need to get one over on this side.

00:19:02.694 --> 00:19:04.924
Now, among all these guys, which of them have mass in them?

00:19:05.017 --> 00:19:07.600
Not this one, 'cause you divided them all out.

00:19:07.600 --> 00:19:09.284
Not velocity,

00:19:09.284 --> 00:19:10.984
only density.

00:19:10.984 --> 00:19:12.095
And density is one power of mass,

00:19:12.095 --> 00:19:15.564
so you have to put one density.

00:19:15.564 --> 00:19:17.759
Question?

00:19:17.759 --> 00:19:19.244
[indistinct question]

00:19:19.244 --> 00:19:21.555
So this is a force.

00:19:21.555 --> 00:19:22.602
Good question.

00:19:22.602 --> 00:19:24.474
So drag is a force.

00:19:24.474 --> 00:19:32.583
So this is just newtons or uh, mass legth per time square.

00:19:32.583 --> 00:19:34.705
Does it help?

00:19:34.705 --> 00:19:38.250
So it's just newtons.

00:19:38.250 --> 00:19:41.720
In SI Newtons or in general, mass length per time squared.

00:19:41.720 --> 00:19:46.224
So mass times an acceleration.

00:19:46.224 --> 00:19:50.441
Okay, so now, we've matched the units of mass

00:19:50.441 --> 00:19:54.428
and there's-- but we haven't matched the units of time yet.

00:19:54.428 --> 00:19:56.165
So let's sort out the time.

00:19:56.165 --> 00:19:58.515
There's no time here, there's not time there.

00:20:00.190 --> 00:20:01.865
There's T to the minus 2 there.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well -- what can we do about that?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We have to match -- We have to throw in some v and some nu (viscosity)

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And the problem is we don't know how much

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So the time doesn't helps us enough

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Turns out, to make the time and the length work

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The simultaneous constraint

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The only way we can do it is that

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay, making the same argument

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Just to get the masses to match, the legths to match and the times to match

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This is the only way to do it

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So you don't have any viscosity

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So actually that's the simplest experiment I know

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
To show that the drag at high speed, most flows are actually high speed,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
High Reynolds number

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Is independent from viscosity

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So it's ro, A, v squared

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And that is a great result because it tells you a lot of stuff

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
About everyday flows and everyday life

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Like for example, why did people reduced speed

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Speed limit on the highway back in the 70's,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
To conserve gas

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well, on the highway

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You're burning gasoline to fight drag

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So if you reduce the speed

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You reduce the drag,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You reduce the amount of gasoline

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In particular, if reduce speed by 20%,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You reduce v squared by 40%

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Which reduces drag by 40%

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Decreased gas consumption by 40%

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So you can these things right way, just by a simple formula

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Which is a imediate consequence of this experiment

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Now, turns out, this -- how do you get that to work?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This is the low Reynolds number limit

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You can't deduce it from this experiment, but, if you know that this is true, you can make the same argument

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And figure out, how the drag force varies for low Reynolds number

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay, now let's just check wheter this formula here

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
That we deduced, works at all

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So the folow up question is the following

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Which is that I have -- 1, 2, 3, 4

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Here on this side, I have 4 small cones

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
They're all identical to this small cone

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So 1 small cone, 2 small cones, 3 small cones, 4 small cones

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So I'm gonna stack all 4 small cones, into a thick small cone

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And I'm gonna race it against one small cone

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So the question is: what is the ratio of these guys' terminal speeds?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So let's call v4 and v1

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So, 4...

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay, so, what is the ratio of their terminal speeds?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
1/4, 1/2, 1, 2 or 4?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So, talk to your neighboor for just a minute, we'll take a quick vote and we'll do the experiment

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay, so let's take a vote and then we'll do the experiment

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
1/4?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Who votes for 1/4 ratio?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Who votes for 1/2?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
1?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
2?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It's about 35...

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
4?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Oh, 10

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay, so, let's do the experiment

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
1, 2, 3, 4 of them

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay so now let me drop them like --- that

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well it's kinda of hard to tell isn't it?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So that was actually not well designed experiment, right?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Because you actually have to get it out of timer and decide wich one is going faster

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And measure how long it took

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It would be nice if had a way that was just like the other experiment

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
What was nice about the other experiment is when I drop them,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You got the answer, by the fact that they hit simultaneously

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So if we can make them hit simultaneously

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Then that would be nice, now what do I have to do to do that?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Well I either have to -- Yeah -- I either have to switch their heights

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
4 to 1 or 2 to 1

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So, let's try 4 to 1

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Okay -- [laughter] -- Is that sort of 4 to 1?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
No? What do I have to do?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This guy got go down

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
This is where my depth perception really fails me

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So I only have a monocular vision. I can see with both eyes, but I don't binocular fuse

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So I can't tell depth

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
[Indistinguishable suggestion from aluminum]

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Oh that's true