I'm sure you've heard the term "I'll be back in a jiffy", or taken your car into a Jiffy Lube. The term "jiffy" is an odd word that is hard to define just based on looking at it, but the word has been around for awhile, and its exact origins are a mystery. However, in both the phrase from above and the oil change company, the word "jiffy" implies quick or fast, as in "I'll be back very quickly" or fast oil change.
The word jiffy was used a long time ago, and is thought to be a slang word for thieves for lightning (which is very fast, as you know). Gilbert Newton Lewis began using the word as a technical term by the early part of the 20th century. He proposed that a jiffy was 33.3564 picoseconds (1 picosecond is 1 trillionth of a second, or another definition: 1 picosecond is to 1 second as 1 second is to 31,700 years) or the time it takes for light to travel 1 centimeter. Jiffy also found usage in electronics, with its definition being the time between alternating current power cycles (around 1/50 or 1/60 of a second). In computing, a jiffy is the duration of one tick of the system timer interrupt, but this is far from being an absolute measurement since it depends on the clock interrupt frequency of the hardware platform. In physics and many times in chemistry, a jiffy is simply defined as the time it takes light to travel a particular distance. Edward R. Harrison began using a jiffy in astrophysics and quantum physics to explain the amount of time it takes light to travel 1 fermi (which is the size of a nucleon in an atom).
There are other definitions, most of which are not commonly accepted, but basically, a jiffy a very short amount of time. Anything less than a second is really too short for the average person to dwell on, but for the scientists out there, a trillionth of a second or 1/60 of a second can be an extremely long amount of time. So when you say jiffy from now on, now you know that it's used as a measurement of time/distance.
Bet you didn't know that!
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
"Curse" of Our Gang
Back in 1922, a series of shorts began and ran until 1944, totaling over 220 and 1 feature film. They featured children who were in real life poor and who were encouraged to not "act" but to be themselves, bringing their own personalities to the screen. There were many child actors who were in these shorts, but a select few became regulars. The casting was more like a contest with parents usually signing their kids up in the hopes that their child would become a star. The show in some ways was far ahead of its time, and in some ways was just as racially discriminating as any other media at the time. Besides the typical racial humor (which at the time was acceptable, and now is not tolerated), the Our Gang shorts featured girls and boys with equal status roles, as well as children of different races on equal status, which one could interpret as children being colorblind. The typical nemesis for the children were adults and sometimes other children. The series was canceled in 1944, but gained new life in the 1950's when 80 of the shorts with sound were syndicated in TV.
In 2002, an E! True Hollywood Story episode popularized a myth that had been circulating for awhile anyways, but with such a recognized outlet of pop culture such as E! reporting on such a phenomenon, then it must be true. Right? Well, as with all things, it depends on how you look at it. An email surfaced not long afterwards naming the actors who'd met unfortunate ends. This has to be legitimate, right? No.
The myth goes that there was a kind of "curse" for the members of the cast of Our Gang. Supposedly a number of actors from the series met with untimely and unusual deaths. But the problem is with all statistics: you can shape them to say whatever you want them to say. In the popular belief, many members died tragically and early. This claim is debatable for a number of reasons. One has to look at the average life expectancy for someone born of that time, as well as understand the percentages of events that happened to the actors.
Of the 29 actors who appeared in 15 shorts or more, there are some significant points that come to light. Firstly, the 29 names in this list are: Sunshine Sammy, Jackie (John Condon), Farina, Mickey (Richard Daniels Jr.), Jackie (John H. Davis), Mary, Joe, Andy, Johnny, Jay, Jean, Wheezer, Harry, Mary Ann, Chubby, Jackie Cooper, Echo, Stymie, Jerry Tucker, Spanky, Butch, Scotty, Buckwheat, Alfalfa, Porky, Darla, Waldo, Mickey (Robert Blake), and Froggy. Of these names, 55% reached at least 72 years of age. Of these names, 76% reached the average life expectancy for people born at their time. Of these names, 83% reached what we consider middle age (mid 40's), which is important because at the time of their birth, the average life expectancy was in the 50's. The part that everyone focuses on is that of these names, three were victims of homicides, two died in accidents, one comitted suicide, two died prematurely of medical problems, and two had problems with substance abuse. Overall, the stats aren't uncommon for how life works out for people; there are always a few that won't make it to old age and a few that will pass away early as well as have troubled lives.
However, since we are fascinated by what goes wrong (which is why we slow down to look at a car crash), here are some of the fates of former Our Gang members that didn't exactly go to plan, and which most of the myths are based on:
Another piece of information that people try to use to "prove the curse exists" is the fact that the magazine Photoplay in 1930 reported that Pete the Pup had been fatally poisoned. However, that's a claim that can't be proven since there were many dogs used in the lifespan of the series, and sometimes several dogs used in the same short. So, there may have been one of the Pete the Pups that was poisoned, but it's impossible to say that the Pete the Pup was poisoned.
One can't really accurately make the claim that there was a curse for the actors because the statistics show a relatively normal cross section of life, even though it is a small sample group used. The one indisputable fact remains that the actors (like most actors of that era) did not receive any royalties for their work. They were paid $40 for new actors up to $200 for the regulars for their services, and that was it. When the shorts went into syndication, the actors saw none of that money because their contracts didn't foresee the use of television. Even future posters, banners, videos, comic books, pictures, and anything else that had their likenesses on them did not contribute any royalties to the actors. So if you want to believe in any curses, believe in the curse of the lack of money that went to the actors. But if you will believe in that, remember: most actors of that era (most notably the Three Stooges) fell into the same boat. These shorts were shown in theaters, and when they were discontinued, they found a new home on television which didn't exist when these shorts began running.
Expendablenlightenment Postscript:
In 2002, an E! True Hollywood Story episode popularized a myth that had been circulating for awhile anyways, but with such a recognized outlet of pop culture such as E! reporting on such a phenomenon, then it must be true. Right? Well, as with all things, it depends on how you look at it. An email surfaced not long afterwards naming the actors who'd met unfortunate ends. This has to be legitimate, right? No.
The myth goes that there was a kind of "curse" for the members of the cast of Our Gang. Supposedly a number of actors from the series met with untimely and unusual deaths. But the problem is with all statistics: you can shape them to say whatever you want them to say. In the popular belief, many members died tragically and early. This claim is debatable for a number of reasons. One has to look at the average life expectancy for someone born of that time, as well as understand the percentages of events that happened to the actors.
Of the 29 actors who appeared in 15 shorts or more, there are some significant points that come to light. Firstly, the 29 names in this list are: Sunshine Sammy, Jackie (John Condon), Farina, Mickey (Richard Daniels Jr.), Jackie (John H. Davis), Mary, Joe, Andy, Johnny, Jay, Jean, Wheezer, Harry, Mary Ann, Chubby, Jackie Cooper, Echo, Stymie, Jerry Tucker, Spanky, Butch, Scotty, Buckwheat, Alfalfa, Porky, Darla, Waldo, Mickey (Robert Blake), and Froggy. Of these names, 55% reached at least 72 years of age. Of these names, 76% reached the average life expectancy for people born at their time. Of these names, 83% reached what we consider middle age (mid 40's), which is important because at the time of their birth, the average life expectancy was in the 50's. The part that everyone focuses on is that of these names, three were victims of homicides, two died in accidents, one comitted suicide, two died prematurely of medical problems, and two had problems with substance abuse. Overall, the stats aren't uncommon for how life works out for people; there are always a few that won't make it to old age and a few that will pass away early as well as have troubled lives.
However, since we are fascinated by what goes wrong (which is why we slow down to look at a car crash), here are some of the fates of former Our Gang members that didn't exactly go to plan, and which most of the myths are based on:
- Froggy - killed at age 16 when his bicycle was hit from behind by a truck
- Waldo - killed by a hit and run driver at age 72
- Darla - died of hepetitis at age 47
- Alfalfa - shot and killed at age 31 over a $50 dispute
- Buckwheat - died of a heart attack at age 49
- Scotty - had problems with alcohol and drugs, and committed suicide of a barbituate overdose at age 38
- Chubby - always had a glandular problem and died from complications with it, either at age 18 or 22 (depending on which source you use)
- Wheezer - joined the Army Air Corps but died at age 20 when his plane crashed
- Jay - at age 87 was stabbed to death by a homeless man whom he had befriended
- Mickey (Richard Daniels Jr.) - spent the last three years of his life working as a taxi driver and dying in a hotel room in San Diego of cirrhosis of the liver at age 55
- Mickey (Robert Blake) - he is still alive, but he is the Robert Blake who went on to have a successful career, but was arrested in 2002 for the murder of his wife
Another piece of information that people try to use to "prove the curse exists" is the fact that the magazine Photoplay in 1930 reported that Pete the Pup had been fatally poisoned. However, that's a claim that can't be proven since there were many dogs used in the lifespan of the series, and sometimes several dogs used in the same short. So, there may have been one of the Pete the Pups that was poisoned, but it's impossible to say that the Pete the Pup was poisoned.
One can't really accurately make the claim that there was a curse for the actors because the statistics show a relatively normal cross section of life, even though it is a small sample group used. The one indisputable fact remains that the actors (like most actors of that era) did not receive any royalties for their work. They were paid $40 for new actors up to $200 for the regulars for their services, and that was it. When the shorts went into syndication, the actors saw none of that money because their contracts didn't foresee the use of television. Even future posters, banners, videos, comic books, pictures, and anything else that had their likenesses on them did not contribute any royalties to the actors. So if you want to believe in any curses, believe in the curse of the lack of money that went to the actors. But if you will believe in that, remember: most actors of that era (most notably the Three Stooges) fell into the same boat. These shorts were shown in theaters, and when they were discontinued, they found a new home on television which didn't exist when these shorts began running.
Expendablenlightenment Postscript:
- The Our Gang shorts began in 1922, before there was sound in movies. These shorts were silent until 1928, when they were made with sound effects and music synchronized to the film, which was delivered with the film on a phonograph disc. In 1929, the first Our Gang short was made with sound.
- Hal Roach, the creator of Our Gang, produced the shorts at his studio and distributed by Pathé from 1922 to 1927. In 1927, MGM began distributing the shorts, and in 1938, Roach sold Our Gang to MGM, who continued to make the shorts until 1944. After the series was canceled, Roach attempted to repurchase the Our Gang shorts and re-release them. In 1949, MGM sold to Roach the rights for the shorts between 1927-1938; however, he was not allowed to use the MGM name, the MGM lions, or use the name "Our Gang". Roach came up with a new title for the 80 shorts with sound: "The Little Rascals". The reissued shorts appeared in theaters again in 1951, and in syndication on TV in 1955. A renewed interest in the shorts erupted, and MGM saw the popularity as an opportunity. MGM reissued their own 1939-1944 Our Gang shorts for syndication in 1956. TV stations bought packages of Little Rascals and Our Gang (sometimes one or the other, and sometimes both). The two separate TV packages then went on to compete against each other in syndication through the 1980's. The Little Rascals name overshadowed the Our Gang name, however, because many stations purchased the rights to show both series, but put them both under the banner of "The Little Rascals", which some could argue happened because that name was the first on the TV. And in case you're wondering what happened the silent Our Gang shorts from 1922-1927 before MGM became involved, they were sold to several distributors who distributed them under names like "The Mischief Makers" and "Those Lovable Scallawags with Their Gangs".
Friday, January 20, 2012
Floods of Beer and Molasses?
Today, when we think of floods, water is really all that comes to mind. In Missouri, people often point back to the flood of 1993. Across the world, memories of massive tsunamis still radiate. Storm surges from Hurricane Katrina still bring painful memories. But did you know that in history there have been other floods that have occurred that had nothing to do with rivers or oceans?
One such flood happened on October 17, 1814. In London, England, a huge vat of 135,000 gallons ruptured, causing the contents to flood out and cause damage to other vats, causing them to rupture as well. Total, there was an estimated 323,000 gallons of liquid to flood the streets of the London neighborhood, causing two homes to be destroyed and a wall at a pub to be damaged. The company that had this happen was located in a poorer part of town where entire families lived in basement homes, which quickly filled with the liquid. Eight people are known to have drowned in this flood.
If you noticed, I didn't say what the contents of the vats was, nor did I say what company had this happen. The company was the Meux and Company Brewery, and the vats contained beer. The brewery was taken to court afterwards, but were not found guilty of anything. The company however found it difficult to continue since they lost a lot of beer and the lack of sales afterward. The company continued on despite the incident. The brewery was torn down in 1922; the Dominion Theatre now is on part of that site.
The London Beer Flood (as it's called) isn't the only unusual flood. The other unusual flood occurred on January 15, 1919, in Boston. This flood is called by a few different names, but the one that usually is referred to is the Boston Molasses Disaster. At the time, molasses was the standard sweetener of the US, so it was in high demand. Molasses could also be fermented and turned into rum, but also could be made into ethyl alcohol which is used in other liquors as well as munitions. The demand for molasses was huge at the time. The Purity Distilling Company owned the 50 ft tall and 90 ft diameter container which burst. An estimated 2.3 million gallons of molasses was in the container when it collapsed, shooting rivets as it tore open. A molasses wave as high as 15 feet rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph. Trains were lifted from the tracks and buildings were knocked off their foundations. The tragic side is that 21 people died and 150 were injured.
A class action lawsuit was filed against the parent company of Purity Distilling Company, which was called the United States Industrial Alcohol Company. After three years, the USIAC was found to be at fault, and they had to pay $600,000 in settlements (today, that's close to $7 million). Even though the USIAC tried to claim that anarchists blew up the tank, it was found that several events contributed to the collapse. Firstly, the temperature outside was unusually warm for a couple days, causing stress in the metal (temperature went from 2°F to 41°F in two days). Secondly, the tank was constructed poorly and tested inaccurately. Thirdly, fermentation had begun in the tank, causing the pressure to build from expelled carbon dioxide (which was heightened by the increased temperature). Fourthly, the initial problem was at the base of the tank in a manhole cover, where a fatigue crack is believed to have grown to complete the disaster. The tank itself had only been filled to capacity only a few times since it was built, so the walls were put under patterns of stress that weakened it. It was found out later that the original construction of the tank didn't use regular tests such as filling with water to check for leaks. When the tank was filled with molasses, it leaked so badly that it was painted brown to hide the leaks. Locals would sneak up to the tank and fill containers with the leaking molasses. Today, the site of the tank is a recreational park called Langone Park.
Here are two examples of unusual floods that didn't involve water. Each one is tragic, but at least one of them could have been prevented. However, I'm sure your history books didn't mention the London Beer Flood or the Boston Molasses Disaster.
Bet you didn't know that!
One such flood happened on October 17, 1814. In London, England, a huge vat of 135,000 gallons ruptured, causing the contents to flood out and cause damage to other vats, causing them to rupture as well. Total, there was an estimated 323,000 gallons of liquid to flood the streets of the London neighborhood, causing two homes to be destroyed and a wall at a pub to be damaged. The company that had this happen was located in a poorer part of town where entire families lived in basement homes, which quickly filled with the liquid. Eight people are known to have drowned in this flood.
If you noticed, I didn't say what the contents of the vats was, nor did I say what company had this happen. The company was the Meux and Company Brewery, and the vats contained beer. The brewery was taken to court afterwards, but were not found guilty of anything. The company however found it difficult to continue since they lost a lot of beer and the lack of sales afterward. The company continued on despite the incident. The brewery was torn down in 1922; the Dominion Theatre now is on part of that site.
The London Beer Flood (as it's called) isn't the only unusual flood. The other unusual flood occurred on January 15, 1919, in Boston. This flood is called by a few different names, but the one that usually is referred to is the Boston Molasses Disaster. At the time, molasses was the standard sweetener of the US, so it was in high demand. Molasses could also be fermented and turned into rum, but also could be made into ethyl alcohol which is used in other liquors as well as munitions. The demand for molasses was huge at the time. The Purity Distilling Company owned the 50 ft tall and 90 ft diameter container which burst. An estimated 2.3 million gallons of molasses was in the container when it collapsed, shooting rivets as it tore open. A molasses wave as high as 15 feet rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph. Trains were lifted from the tracks and buildings were knocked off their foundations. The tragic side is that 21 people died and 150 were injured.
A class action lawsuit was filed against the parent company of Purity Distilling Company, which was called the United States Industrial Alcohol Company. After three years, the USIAC was found to be at fault, and they had to pay $600,000 in settlements (today, that's close to $7 million). Even though the USIAC tried to claim that anarchists blew up the tank, it was found that several events contributed to the collapse. Firstly, the temperature outside was unusually warm for a couple days, causing stress in the metal (temperature went from 2°F to 41°F in two days). Secondly, the tank was constructed poorly and tested inaccurately. Thirdly, fermentation had begun in the tank, causing the pressure to build from expelled carbon dioxide (which was heightened by the increased temperature). Fourthly, the initial problem was at the base of the tank in a manhole cover, where a fatigue crack is believed to have grown to complete the disaster. The tank itself had only been filled to capacity only a few times since it was built, so the walls were put under patterns of stress that weakened it. It was found out later that the original construction of the tank didn't use regular tests such as filling with water to check for leaks. When the tank was filled with molasses, it leaked so badly that it was painted brown to hide the leaks. Locals would sneak up to the tank and fill containers with the leaking molasses. Today, the site of the tank is a recreational park called Langone Park.
 |
| Aftermath of the Boston Molasses Disaster |
Bet you didn't know that!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Faces on the Cards
Chances are you know the face cards in deck of playing cards: king, queen, and jack. However, there are probably some things you may not know about them. Playing cards in general were invented in China over a thousand years ago. Since then, various designs and types have been used throughout the world. The standard 52 card deck (with 2 jokers making it 54) is typically of a French design. There are common designs that come from Germany, Swiss, China, Mongolia, etc., often available with different amounts of cards in the deck (Italian usually having 40, Russian usually having 36, etc.). Some decks have a 1 card and an ace card, just like the 56 card tarot deck. In the different countries, the face cards have different people on them.
But the real question is, who are the people on the cards? In the Anglo-American decks of cards, these faces are based on people.
King of Spades - King David, of Biblical origin
King of Hearts - Either Charlemagne or Charles VII (depending on who you ask)
King of Diamonds - Julius Caesar
King of Clubs - Alexander the Great
Queen of Spades - Pallas (daughter of the ancient Greek sea-god Triton)
Queen of Hearts - Judith (from the Septuagent and Catholic Old Testament book of Judith)
Queen of Diamonds - Rachel (either Biblical, or mistress of Charles VII from above, or in relation to Lancelot below)
Queen of Clubs - Argine (either an anagram of regina, which is Latin for queen, or from Argea from ancient Greek mythology)
Jack of Spades - Ogier the Dane (also called Holger Danske), a knight of Charlemagne
Jack of Hearts - Étienne de Vignolles (called La Hire) fought alongside of Joan of Arc and was a member of Charles VII's court
Jack of Diamonds - Hector, the greatest fighter of the Trojan War in ancient Greek mythology
Jack of Clubs - Judas Maccabeus (one of the grestest fighters in Jewish history), or Lancelot
Most of the names above come from history and some from mythology, but they are all based on someone. There is still some debate as to the exact reference for some of them.
One other note: the jack was for a long time called a knave (knave of hearts, knave of clubs, etc.) The word knave has two definitions: someone who is either untrustworthy or dishonest, or a male servant.
Bet you didn't know that!
But the real question is, who are the people on the cards? In the Anglo-American decks of cards, these faces are based on people.
King of Spades - King David, of Biblical origin
King of Hearts - Either Charlemagne or Charles VII (depending on who you ask)
King of Diamonds - Julius Caesar
King of Clubs - Alexander the Great
Queen of Spades - Pallas (daughter of the ancient Greek sea-god Triton)
Queen of Hearts - Judith (from the Septuagent and Catholic Old Testament book of Judith)
Queen of Diamonds - Rachel (either Biblical, or mistress of Charles VII from above, or in relation to Lancelot below)
Queen of Clubs - Argine (either an anagram of regina, which is Latin for queen, or from Argea from ancient Greek mythology)
Jack of Spades - Ogier the Dane (also called Holger Danske), a knight of Charlemagne
Jack of Hearts - Étienne de Vignolles (called La Hire) fought alongside of Joan of Arc and was a member of Charles VII's court
Jack of Diamonds - Hector, the greatest fighter of the Trojan War in ancient Greek mythology
Jack of Clubs - Judas Maccabeus (one of the grestest fighters in Jewish history), or Lancelot
Most of the names above come from history and some from mythology, but they are all based on someone. There is still some debate as to the exact reference for some of them.
One other note: the jack was for a long time called a knave (knave of hearts, knave of clubs, etc.) The word knave has two definitions: someone who is either untrustworthy or dishonest, or a male servant.
Bet you didn't know that!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Honeymoon = A Honey Month?
Here in the 21st Century, we think of honeymoons as the time for a newlywed couple to enjoy some alone time after their wedding, usually involving a trip to someplace scenic, secluded, adventurous, or just simply someplace different. But have you ever wondered about the word "honeymoon"? Honey? And moon? And how long have people been going on honeymoons?
There are references to the practice dating back a few thousand years, but the earliest reference in English to the term honeymoon came around in the 1500's. The original meaning of the word was in reference to the time just following the wedding when marriage was at its sweetest, and as the time wore on, the sweetness would wane like the moon. The honeymoon time was thought of to be a month, and the lunar cycle is a month, so literally a "honey month", or the original spelling "hony moone".
In the 19th Century, British citizens adopted a tradition from the Indian subcontinent (which was a territory of Great Britain at the time). They would go on a voyage (usually with friends and family) to visit family that could not make it to the wedding. The tradition spread all over Europe. This was only possible for the more rich members of British society. These trips were frequently called "bridal tours". Late in the 19th Century, the tradition shifted to only the married couple going on a voyage, which began a large tourism trade in the world. The most popular destinations at the time were the French Riviera and Italy. In the early days of the modern honeymoon, the newylwed couple would leave during the reception to make a train or boat to begin their journey, while the party went on without them. In the last hundred years, the honeymoon began to be pushed back to a few days after the reception and sometimes even farther than a week afterwards.
Bet you didn't know that!
There are references to the practice dating back a few thousand years, but the earliest reference in English to the term honeymoon came around in the 1500's. The original meaning of the word was in reference to the time just following the wedding when marriage was at its sweetest, and as the time wore on, the sweetness would wane like the moon. The honeymoon time was thought of to be a month, and the lunar cycle is a month, so literally a "honey month", or the original spelling "hony moone".
In the 19th Century, British citizens adopted a tradition from the Indian subcontinent (which was a territory of Great Britain at the time). They would go on a voyage (usually with friends and family) to visit family that could not make it to the wedding. The tradition spread all over Europe. This was only possible for the more rich members of British society. These trips were frequently called "bridal tours". Late in the 19th Century, the tradition shifted to only the married couple going on a voyage, which began a large tourism trade in the world. The most popular destinations at the time were the French Riviera and Italy. In the early days of the modern honeymoon, the newylwed couple would leave during the reception to make a train or boat to begin their journey, while the party went on without them. In the last hundred years, the honeymoon began to be pushed back to a few days after the reception and sometimes even farther than a week afterwards.
Bet you didn't know that!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Felt Air Temperature
When you're outside in the summer or in the winter, sometimes it may feel warmer or colder than it really is because of either the humidity or the wind. If it is the summer, it is due mostly to the humidity, and in the winter, it is mostly the wind. The heat index is an attempt to combine the actual temperature and the humidity to a degree that the body perceives the temperature to be. Similarly in the winter, the wind chill is used to attempt to combine the actual temperature and wind speed to a degree that the body perceives the temperature to be.
Both of these are called Felt Air Temperature. It isn't how hot or cold the temperature is, but instead how it feels. The actual measurement is very scientific with a very long equation. However, both the wind chill and heat index make assumptions about the averages for people, including height, weight, clothing, body mass, amount of physical activity, thickness of blood, and sunlight and ultraviolet radiation exposure. The interesting thing about the heat index is that the higher the temperature goes, the less amount of humidity is needed to raise the heat index. For example, if it is 80°F, then the humidity has to be over 45% to raise the heat index above 80°F. But if the temperature is 110 °F, then the humidty needs to be over only 17% to raise the heat index over 110 °F. Similarly with wind chill, the colder the outside temperature is, the more the wind will affect the results.
Some other interesting facts about Felt Air Temperatures:
Because of the way humidity interacts with temperatures, haze then clouds would develop which reduces the amount of direct sunlight, so there was a maximum heat index that scientists thought would be possible on earth. This was 160 °F. However, on July 8, 2003, in Saudi Arabia, the dewpoint reached 95 °F and the actual temperature was 108 °F, which combined to be a heat index of 172 °F.
The coldest recorded wind chill varies, but the place doesn't. Vostok, Russia, in 2004: between -184°F to -192°F.
Canada doesn't use the heat index based on temperature and humidity. They use temperature and dew point, and they call it the humidex.
The wind chill had been used before World War II, but the heat index wasn't used until the late 1970's.
Bet you didn't know that!
Both of these are called Felt Air Temperature. It isn't how hot or cold the temperature is, but instead how it feels. The actual measurement is very scientific with a very long equation. However, both the wind chill and heat index make assumptions about the averages for people, including height, weight, clothing, body mass, amount of physical activity, thickness of blood, and sunlight and ultraviolet radiation exposure. The interesting thing about the heat index is that the higher the temperature goes, the less amount of humidity is needed to raise the heat index. For example, if it is 80°F, then the humidity has to be over 45% to raise the heat index above 80°F. But if the temperature is 110 °F, then the humidty needs to be over only 17% to raise the heat index over 110 °F. Similarly with wind chill, the colder the outside temperature is, the more the wind will affect the results.
Some other interesting facts about Felt Air Temperatures:
Because of the way humidity interacts with temperatures, haze then clouds would develop which reduces the amount of direct sunlight, so there was a maximum heat index that scientists thought would be possible on earth. This was 160 °F. However, on July 8, 2003, in Saudi Arabia, the dewpoint reached 95 °F and the actual temperature was 108 °F, which combined to be a heat index of 172 °F.
The coldest recorded wind chill varies, but the place doesn't. Vostok, Russia, in 2004: between -184°F to -192°F.
Canada doesn't use the heat index based on temperature and humidity. They use temperature and dew point, and they call it the humidex.
The wind chill had been used before World War II, but the heat index wasn't used until the late 1970's.
Bet you didn't know that!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The "Phillie Phold"
In 2011, the St. Louis Cardinals seemed to pull off the impossible: come back from 10.5 games back in the wild card chase, then make the playoffs, then win the World Series. Images such as the Rally Squirrel and the "Happy Flight" will live on. But the story of the impossible come from out of contention, make the playoffs on the last day of the season, then beat the best-in-MLB Phillies, then beat the best-at-home Brewers, then beat the heavily favored Rangers was a movie ending that will take time to sink in for some people, and will leave the "baseball braintrusts" scratching their heads for years.
It might surprise you to know that a similar incident ocurred in 1964 to the Cardinals. That year, there is no reason to assume the Cardinals were going to make an impact. The previous trip to the World Series was in 1946, where they'd won the World Series against the Red Sox in 7 games. Before 1963, the last Cardinals team to even get close to the postseason was the 1949 team. The 1963 team finished with a record of 93-69. However, the grestest Cardinal of them all decided to call it a career at the end of the 1963 season; after 22 seasons, Stan Musial retired. This led many to doubt how the 1964 season would be any improvement.
However, the small signs were pointing to a positive year. Bob Gibson had his first big season in 1963, going 18-9. Tim McCarver was emerging as a great catcher. Ken Boyer and Bill White had great seasons each. Pitchers Ray Sadecki and Curt Simmons were on the way to helping the fold. The team was actually stronger than most people realized. The biggest deal of the 1964 season was trading Ernie Broglio to the Cubs in June for Lou Brock. This added speed to the lineup and a new life. Most sportswriters and players thought this was a great move for Chicago, but Broglio had a bad second half, and went on to have two injury-plagued seasons.
The pieces were falling into place. But there was one major setback that would have made most ballclubs fall to pieces. On August 16, 1964, with the Cardinals 9 1/2 games out of first place, the owner Gussie Busch fired the General Manager Bing Devine, architect of the trade Broglio/Brock trade. The manger Johnny Keane knew that he would probably be gone at the end of the season. He had nothing to lose. On August 23, the Cardinals were 11 games back of the first place Phillies.
But then something strange happened: they began to win games. The Phillies continued to win also, but the Cardinals slowly began to gain ground. On September 20, the Cardinals and Reds were tied for second place: both 6 1/2 games back of the Phillies. Everyone counted the Cardinals out of the race, even though they won, it couldn't be enough. Or could it? The problem with the Phillies was two-fold: they were pushed too hard and their injuries were too numerous. The starting pitchers were forced to pitch with short rest at least 6 times down the stretch, causing their quality to deteriorate drastically. The amount of injuries also forced losses at the worst possible time. There were 12 games to go when the infamous "Phillie Phold" happened.
Starting a three-game series against the Reds on September 21, the Phillies were swept. The next series was a four-game series against the Milwaukee Braves, who also swept the Phillies (that's 7 losses in a row, if you're counting). On September 27, the Reds were in first place, with the Phillies a game behind, and the Cardinals 1 1/2 games behind first place. The following day, the Phillies and Cardinals met for a crucial three-game series. The Cardinals swept the Phillies (which makes the Phillies 10 losses in a row at that point). The Reds lost to Pittsburgh, allowing the Cardinals to take over first place. There was one last series to go before the season ended. The Cardinals took on the Mets (who were terrible, of course), and the Reds and Phillies squared off. The Cardinals won only one of the three games against the Mets, but at that point, the Reds were more of a contender than the Phillies. The Phillies ended up beating the Reds, causing the Cardinals to finish the season one game ahead of the Reds and Phillies.
The "Phillie Phold" is considered by many to be one of the (if not the) worst sports collapses in sports history. Many incidents contributed to the collapse of the monumental Phillies team. But in the end, sometimes it's just who gets lucky. The Cardinals would go on to win the World Series in 7 games against the Yankees. The 2011 Cardinals will be remembered for an equally amazing come from behind story, epic in nature and memorable for all sports fans. Both the 1964 and 2011 Cardinals prove to all fans that a team is never out of the race unless it is mathematically impossible, but if there is 1 game left, then there is still a chance.
Bet you didn't know that!
It might surprise you to know that a similar incident ocurred in 1964 to the Cardinals. That year, there is no reason to assume the Cardinals were going to make an impact. The previous trip to the World Series was in 1946, where they'd won the World Series against the Red Sox in 7 games. Before 1963, the last Cardinals team to even get close to the postseason was the 1949 team. The 1963 team finished with a record of 93-69. However, the grestest Cardinal of them all decided to call it a career at the end of the 1963 season; after 22 seasons, Stan Musial retired. This led many to doubt how the 1964 season would be any improvement.
However, the small signs were pointing to a positive year. Bob Gibson had his first big season in 1963, going 18-9. Tim McCarver was emerging as a great catcher. Ken Boyer and Bill White had great seasons each. Pitchers Ray Sadecki and Curt Simmons were on the way to helping the fold. The team was actually stronger than most people realized. The biggest deal of the 1964 season was trading Ernie Broglio to the Cubs in June for Lou Brock. This added speed to the lineup and a new life. Most sportswriters and players thought this was a great move for Chicago, but Broglio had a bad second half, and went on to have two injury-plagued seasons.
The pieces were falling into place. But there was one major setback that would have made most ballclubs fall to pieces. On August 16, 1964, with the Cardinals 9 1/2 games out of first place, the owner Gussie Busch fired the General Manager Bing Devine, architect of the trade Broglio/Brock trade. The manger Johnny Keane knew that he would probably be gone at the end of the season. He had nothing to lose. On August 23, the Cardinals were 11 games back of the first place Phillies.
But then something strange happened: they began to win games. The Phillies continued to win also, but the Cardinals slowly began to gain ground. On September 20, the Cardinals and Reds were tied for second place: both 6 1/2 games back of the Phillies. Everyone counted the Cardinals out of the race, even though they won, it couldn't be enough. Or could it? The problem with the Phillies was two-fold: they were pushed too hard and their injuries were too numerous. The starting pitchers were forced to pitch with short rest at least 6 times down the stretch, causing their quality to deteriorate drastically. The amount of injuries also forced losses at the worst possible time. There were 12 games to go when the infamous "Phillie Phold" happened.
Starting a three-game series against the Reds on September 21, the Phillies were swept. The next series was a four-game series against the Milwaukee Braves, who also swept the Phillies (that's 7 losses in a row, if you're counting). On September 27, the Reds were in first place, with the Phillies a game behind, and the Cardinals 1 1/2 games behind first place. The following day, the Phillies and Cardinals met for a crucial three-game series. The Cardinals swept the Phillies (which makes the Phillies 10 losses in a row at that point). The Reds lost to Pittsburgh, allowing the Cardinals to take over first place. There was one last series to go before the season ended. The Cardinals took on the Mets (who were terrible, of course), and the Reds and Phillies squared off. The Cardinals won only one of the three games against the Mets, but at that point, the Reds were more of a contender than the Phillies. The Phillies ended up beating the Reds, causing the Cardinals to finish the season one game ahead of the Reds and Phillies.
The "Phillie Phold" is considered by many to be one of the (if not the) worst sports collapses in sports history. Many incidents contributed to the collapse of the monumental Phillies team. But in the end, sometimes it's just who gets lucky. The Cardinals would go on to win the World Series in 7 games against the Yankees. The 2011 Cardinals will be remembered for an equally amazing come from behind story, epic in nature and memorable for all sports fans. Both the 1964 and 2011 Cardinals prove to all fans that a team is never out of the race unless it is mathematically impossible, but if there is 1 game left, then there is still a chance.
Bet you didn't know that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)