<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Chopstork</title>
	<link>http://www.chopstork.com/blog</link>
	<description>Coming soon to a restaurant near you.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>The cow&#8217;s tubing</title>
		<link>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2006/05/16/the-cows-tubing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2006/05/16/the-cows-tubing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 07:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>some dude</dc:creator>
		
	<dc:subject>stupid fun events</dc:subject><dc:subject>b2b</dc:subject><dc:subject>b2b2006</dc:subject><dc:subject>Bay to Breakers</dc:subject><dc:subject>science is fun</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chopstork.com/wordpress/2006/05/16/the-cows-tubing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ During the course of creating our paper mache masterpiece for last year&#8217;s Bay to Breakers, we got into a discussion that we never really settled:  You make a big volcano (or big cow) with buckets inside and tubes coming out through which you and your friends will suck hot molten magma (or &#8220;milk&#8221;). [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a id="p76" href="http://www.chopstork.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/suction.xls"> </a>During the course of creating our paper mache masterpiece for last year&#8217;s Bay to Breakers, we got into a discussion that we never really settled:  You make a big volcano (or big cow) with buckets inside and tubes coming out through which you and your friends will suck hot molten magma (or &#8220;milk&#8221;).  Which is easier to suck the magma/milk through&#8212;a fatter tube or a skinnier tube?  Discuss.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2006/05/16/the-cows-tubing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analysis of a Poop Smear</title>
		<link>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/25/analysis-of-a-poop-smear/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/25/analysis-of-a-poop-smear/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>some dude</dc:creator>
		
	<dc:subject>Whatever</dc:subject><dc:subject>humor</dc:subject><dc:subject>poop</dc:subject><dc:subject>science is fun</dc:subject><dc:subject>toilet</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chopstork.com/wordpress/2005/07/07/analysis-of-a-poop-smear/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah yeah, another writing about poo? Tell people to quit leaving their crap (literally) everywhere and I&#8217;ll stop writing about it.
There was a semicircular smudge of what I assume was poo on the toilet seat. WHY?
The figure below shows a toilet with it&#8217;s critical dimension, the hole. Also shown is the mating part, the mystery [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah yeah, another writing about poo? Tell people to quit leaving their crap (literally) everywhere and I&#8217;ll stop writing about it.</p>
<p>There was a semicircular smudge of what I assume was poo on the toilet seat. WHY?</p>
<p>The figure below shows a toilet with it&#8217;s critical dimension, the hole. Also shown is the mating part, the mystery pooper. Let&#8217;s call it a press fit for the poo in the person. The goal here is to clear the toilet&#8217;s hole. Diameter of the hole is nominally 8.5 in. 8.5 - 1.0 = 7.5 MMC. 7.5 - .5 = 7 virtual condition. Poo is 1.0 + .5 = 1.5 on the big side. 7 - 1.5 = 5.5 inches. Mystery pooper has to hit a 5.5 inch target at worst. If he poops smaller, he can be that much further off-center. That is very doable. Millions of people do it every day. There should be no poo on the toilet seat. Please.</p>
<div style="text-align: center"><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/89956998@N00/212290624/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/80/212290624_4ab828edab.jpg" width="500" height="386" alt="toiletcropped" /></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/25/analysis-of-a-poop-smear/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Big Is A Google?</title>
		<link>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/07/how-big-is-a-google/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/07/how-big-is-a-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>some dude</dc:creator>
		
	<dc:subject>Whatever</dc:subject><dc:subject>google</dc:subject><dc:subject>science is fun</dc:subject>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chopstork.com/wordpress/2006/06/07/how-big-is-a-google/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dan, Britt, Laura, and I started trying to figure out how big a google is. A googol is &#8220;1&#8221; with a hundred &#8220;0&#8221;s. That is a lot. What&#8217;s there a googol of on earth? Ants? Grains of sand? Dan said nothing; said there aren&#8217;t even a googol atoms on earth. The rest of us politely [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan, Britt, Laura, and I started trying to figure out how big a google is. A googol is &#8220;1&#8221; with a hundred &#8220;0&#8221;s. That is a lot. What&#8217;s there a googol of on earth? Ants? Grains of sand? Dan said nothing; said there aren&#8217;t even a googol atoms on earth. The rest of us politely disagreed. Not a googol on all of Earth!? A mole is 6.02&#215;10^23 molecules, and a mole of salt is nothing. Surely a googol atoms exist on Earth. After much googling, Dan found that there are only 4&#215;10^79 hydrogen atoms in the UNIVERSE. And hydrogen is 90% of the universe. So we lost. There are a googol of nothing on Earth.</p>
<p>But that is almost a googol hydrogen atoms&#8230;right? We next considered the parts of the atom. There are about 10^9 photons and neutrinos for each hydrogen atom, more googling tells us. That gets us to 10^88 photons, neutrinos, and hydrogen atoms. Sounds close, but it&#8217;s not. We still need one trillion universes to get a googol of those atom parts!!! DAMN! That order of magnitude stuff really messes you up. No wonder they invented log-log paper.</p>
<p>Next we got a little abstract and counted time. How many nano seconds since the beginning of the universe? 10^9 nanoseconds per second * 10^2 seconds per minute * 10^2 minutes per hour * 10^1 hours per day * 10^3 days per year * 10^10 years since the creation of the universe = 10^27 nanoseconds. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! And that is overestimating. Then, the geniuses we are, we figured it out. There are a googol one-googoliths of a second in one second. In the time you read this, about 45 googol googoliths of a second went by. You can read our paper in the next issue of the journal Nature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chopstork.com/blog/2005/06/07/how-big-is-a-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
