The coefficient of expansion has nothing to do with this. The volume of rubber does increase when heated. But that doesn't determine how the elasticity behaves.
It's a classic science fair project to stretch rubber or polyethylene and then heat it. the student's expectation is the band will stretch but it contracts with heat. Same with polyethylene and shrinky dinks in the toaster.
I hear they changed the name.
No. rubber expands in the cold.
I wonder how the Mystery Goo is going to behave in that orbit.
Yes we all know about PV=nRT. But it's not just the pressure P and T that are changing in the equation. Why not also consider the rubber bladder, leather and stiched seams. Rubber and other un-oriented polymers Expand when chilled. the stitching threads are oriented to they should compress when chilled. My guess is the leather will expand too. So the pressure could drop just from the ball's volume increasing not just a constant.
Finally no one seems to consider an even easier way the balls could get deflated. The reason people like deflated balls is because they are more supple to grasp. Some QBs like to have the balls scuffed for the same reason. It would seem like a really good idea to achieve this would be to pour rubbing alchohol (isopropyl) on the balls. This is what cobblers do before they stretch a leather shoe. The balls would just soften on the outside plus expand under pressure, deflating them slightly. This might even be quicker to do than inserting a needle in each ball.
The whole descriptions and accounts thing starts with 'this telecast is copyright by the nfl...'
I guess you never noticed that every one of the clips shown (which is what is being discussed) says 'courtesy of
And show me the SCOTUS decision that says it is OK to use someone else's copyrighted material for reporting the news. If the clip itself was news you may have a fair use argument, but the clip is never the news, it is what the clip shows that is news, so there is no fair use argument for using the clip.
No, they cant. Why do you think they can?
I am not sure why you responded to me with that. I agree with everything you said. I was just responding to the dope who said it could not be copyrighted because it was not in fixed form. It is considered in fixed form because it is being simultaneously recorded by the NFL/network.
So you're trying to claim that they don't have a recording of exactly what went out over the air, and that every time they rerun it they are recreating the broadcast? Good one!
No, that is not what it means at all. The accounts, descriptions, and images that they are talking about are the ones from their telecast, not accounts and descriptions you create.
Completely wrong. The only thing that is under penalty of perjury in the DC is the statement that you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.
If you are going to claim to 'know the law' then you should know the law. Particularly this sentence:
A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
Wrong. The NFL says the BROADCAST descriptions and accounts are copyrighted. Plenty of other places have their own accounts and descriptions.
Not sure if that was a joke or if you have been drinking too much apple koolaide. I don't think apple loves you as much as you think it does. I don't think apple execs care about you as much as you think they do.
It's not that Apple loves you more than any other mega-corporation. Few people, I would imagine, actually have delusions about that. But Apple's primary business is selling hardware to you. It's partly why their hardware generally commands a premium price - it's sale subsidizes a lot of their software development.
Contrary to that, Google's primary business is selling information about you. This is used to subsidize many excellent and completely free software services, such as search, e-mail, and the Android platform.
I happily use gmail and have an Android phone. You just have to know the tradeoffs you're making. If you feel creepy about having an algorithm scan your e-mail to automatically present some targeted ads to you in exchange for a free e-mail service, then perhaps Apple is a better choice. If you're uncomfortable with Apple's complete control over it's walled garden world, then maybe Google / Android is a better choice for you. And if you're bound and determined to punish yourself, you can always buy a Windows phone.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
