My Geogebra model – feel free to use it and modify it to see if you can make it a better fit to ‘the data’, AKA the wall.

**Pro-Tip:** The thicker the line, the better the fit. This is a joke.

- use any functions to model the wall that the guy is skating along above.
- Try to be specific about what domains you want your functions to occupy
- be as creative as you wish, or as lame
- bon voyage!

Let’s use this eye-opening moment to practise our skills of statistics & estimation. This is a real photo, and research shows that mammals can feel the same emotions as we do.

Maybe you’ll share a few moments with me, thinking about the quality of the lives of animals in our food system, as we do our work.

Are you able to estimate the thickness of the walls of these particular shipping containers, based solely on the information you see in the photo?

- their walls are uniform thickness all over (which is doubtful!)
- they are made entirely of steel, with a density of 8000 Kg / m
^{3}

I think this is a fun little bit of photo-detection. Perfect to put on your resume for the CIA!

http://www.canscale.com/

Gross weight – Tare = Net weight

**Example**: The gross weight of a tin of biscuits includes the tin and the biscuits. The Net weight is the weight of just the biscuits, and the tare in this case would be the weight of the tin. Simple!

I planted 1 lettuce seed in each of these circular ‘cells’ 4 days ago.

Do you think they are growing well? Explain how you know.

Can you work out the **fraction** that have germinated?

Not all seeds will grow successfully. Sometimes seed packets show a **germination ** **percentage rate** (%). In other words, this tells you **on average** how many seeds out of 100 you would expect to germinate**.**

A gardener sowed 100 of the Calendula ‘Fiesta Gitana’ seeds shown above. She observed that 90 of the seeds germinated successfully. Compare her results with the **germination percentage **shown on the seed packet.

Can you explain why they are different?

You can convert your germination fraction into a ‘germination

percentage rate’, like we saw on these seed packets like this:

- Identify the
**numerator**(top) and**denominator**(bottom) of your fraction. - Use a calculator to divide the numerator by the denominator.
- This gives you the decimal equivalent to the fraction.
- Multiply this by 100 to calculate the percentage. That’s it!

Write your result into your worksheet now.

**Challenge**! If you want to practise your numeracy skills, try to convert from the fraction to the percentage without using a calculator (or a safety rope!).

**HINT**: First try to find an equivalent fraction with a denominator that is a factor of 100.

- Numerator: the top number in a fraction
- Denominator: bottom number in a fraction
- average: a number that describes the middle value of a set of data
- percentage: a fraction expressed with a denominator of 100 written with this symbol %, which is actually the units in 100 rearranged!

The deck boards are “2 by 6″s. You might want to look that up.

My standard approach to modelling a problem like this is to load it into Geogebra. Then I look for various parts of the rope which resemble geometric entities I can calculate with.

It looks like a straight line will be an adequate model from F to E, and circles for the rest:

I considered using Pythagoras theorem, but this is only worthwhile if you need practice with basic trigonometry.

Position points that you are giong to use for measurements as accurately as possible by zooming in, to minimise errors. Remember that it is the “dead-center’ of points where you will actually measure to.

**Pro-tip: **using crosses instead of circles to mark points is more precise. Next time I will!

3 points well spaced along the circumference in order to define 2 chords: FG and FH. They do not need to be visible as lines for us to be able to bisect them next:

If you apply this theorem twice, you can find the exact center of any circle!

Here I used Geogebra’s Line-Bisector tool twice, to locate the center of the circle.

I used the “Circle with Center & Radius” tool and colored it orange, also making it thicker and easier to see. I did this to compare the shape of the coil to a circle centered on point I. Although not perfect, it looks circular enough to justify using circles to model it.

Measuring the thickness of a single rope strand by carefully positioning points J & K.

IH = radius of the model circle in this image:

Next we divide the total radius of the circle by the thickness of one strand to find how many layers there are in the coil:

Radius / strand thickness = 2.08 / 0.25 = 8.32

We will round down and say there are about 8 circles – we could have just counted them of course but I like to use more general methods when possible, so that we could adapt this method for more difficult situations. Go and count now to double-check though…

Yes, there are 8.

We could model the situation as 8 separate circles, with radiuses beginning at 2.00 and reducing by 0.25 units each time. The total length of rope would approximately be equal to the sum of their circumferences.

In fact this is what
I will do. It would of course be more accurate to model the coil **as a spiral**. In this recreational situation
however it would not make enough difference to make me want to try it… If I
had the actual length to compare my answer to, and I wanted to get as close as
possible, this **is** what I would do.

Here are the radii and Circumferences of the 8 circles.

Radius (r) | Circumference (2 *pi *r) | |

1 | 2 | 4*pi |

2 | 1.75 | 3.5*pi |

3 | 1.5 | 3*pi |

4 | 1.25 | 2.5*pi |

5 | 1.00 | 2*pi |

6 | 0.75 | 1.5*pi |

7 | 0.5 | 1 * pi |

8 | 0.25 | 0.5 * pi |

Total | 18 * pi |

So the total length
of the coiled section is about:

18 * Pi = 56.5 units

Plus the straight section EF which was 5.93 gives us:

56.5 + 5.9 = 62.4 units

But how long is a unit?

Well a single 1×4 board is 3.5 inches wide (I said you might want to look it up!), so let’s do this:

3.5 “/ 2.25 = 1.5556 inches per unit

So each unit is about 1-1/2 inches so we’ll multiply our answer by that conversion factor:

62.4 * 1.5556 = 97.0694 inches

So let’s say about 97 inches.

With approximate calculations like this you should round your answers to make them easy to work with. Just be mindful of if you are rounding up or down and try to not drift too far!

To convert from a small unit to a larger one, always divide by the conversion factor. You will always end up with less of the BIG unit!

Next we divide inches by 12 to find how many feet:

97 / 12 = 8.0833 feet

**My solution is: roughly 8 feet**

**What did you get? Write a comment below.**

For decades balloons ruled the skies, even being shamefully employed to drop bombs on civilians during warfare, but they were soon literally overtaken by aeroplanes, which became a faster & safer way to fly. How would you like to take 111 hours to cruise from the USA to England on an airship? Would that really be so bad?

The modern hot-air balloon shown below is heating the air inside the balloon’s envelope with a gas burner, prior to launch. The burner is attached to the top of the basket, and fired up periodically to keep the air warm, which enables the balloon to stay aloft until it runs out of fuel. I adore the unmistakable throaty, roaring sound these huge propane burners make, and the sight of their billowing luminous flames is quite awe-inspiring for a pyromaniac like me.

“How come the balloons don’t catch on fire I always wondered, having seen images of the explosion of the Hindenberg Zeppelin. It turns out, predictably, that they are made from a fireproof material called – thank you Wikipedia! Which leads me to a question

- What temperature is required for lift-off?
- Is the lift-off temperature the same at all altitudes? Imagine launching from a high plateau.
- What temperature would be needed at 4000 feet above sea-level?

Some balloons are only designed for a couple of passengers, while some can carry up to 25 people at once. Their size varies a lot, so let’s just think about regular sized balloons of 100 000 cubic feet, which could carry about 4 people.

Do you know how to get started with this problem? If not, drop me a comment below and I will send you a hint. If you really don’t have time to try this problem but you want to see a solution, then **check this link.**

If you quite understandably wish to work in liters (I wish we all would!), then imagine a balloon that is 3 million liters, a teeny bit more than the Imperial value given above.

See the original problem before the solution?

**Can you match the names to the formulae?**

C_{3}H_{8}, C_{4}H_{6}, C_{3}H_{4}, C_{4}H_{8}, C_{7}H_{14}, C_{2}H_{2}

Heptene, Butyne, Propane, Butene, Ethyne, Propyne

There are many ways to solve this without any chemistry knowledge, but as a Math teacher I knew heptagons are 7-sided polygons so this was my break-in point. There was only a single 7 in all the formulae so I was in luck! This told me that the **prefix **of the name is determined by the **number of Carbon atoms** in the formula.

**Hept**ene = **C**_{7}H_{14}

There are 3 different types of **endings for the chemical names** (**suffixes**) which allowed me to group them into 3 categories:

**-enes**

Heptene & butene

**-anes**

Propane

–**ynes**

Butyne, ethyne & propyne

**I tried to draw diagrams of the compounds but did not get very far as I could not remember how their bonds work!**

So, if the number of carbons in the compound determines its prefix, it must be the ratio of carbons to hydrogens that determines the suffix (otherwise there would have to be another number in the name (e.g. buhexane)).

**Analysing the ratio of carbon ** **to hydrogen atoms in the formulae **revealed some patterns:

- there were twice as many Hs as Cs in C
_{7}H_{14}& C_{4}H_{8} - C
_{3}H_{8}, C_{4}H_{6}, C_{3}H_{4}have more Hs than Cs, (but**not**twice as much) - C
_{2}H_{2}has equal numbers of H and C

There are only 2 compounds in the -enes group so I figured that if C_{7}H_{14} is **heptene**, then **C**_{4}**H**_{8}** **must be **butene**, the only other -ene This implies that compounds having **4 carbons should be named ‘bu-something’.**

I realised I could not group these two compounds together (C_{3}H_{8 & }C_{3}H_{4}), because the grouping was to determine the ratio & hence suffix, (with the 3 Cs giving the prefix). So I put C_{3}H_{8} into its own group because it had more than 2 Hydrogens for every Carbon. Then I put C_{2}H_{2} into the group because it had to go somewhere and I only wanted 3 groups. Not very scientific I know but it worked!

Here are the groups by ratio of C to H, to hopefully work out the suffixes.

**Group 1**:

C_{7}H_{14,} C_{4}H_{8}

**Group 2: **

C_{3}H_{8} **Group 3: **

C_{4}H_{6}, C_{3}H_{4,} C_{2}H_{2}

So the group with just a single compound must be the only -ane, so thereore**:C**

Group 3 must be the three “-ynes”.

The prefix ‘pro’ must mean 3 carbons, as propane had 3, so:

C_{3}H_{4} = propyne

Above we figured that **4 carbons would be named bu-something **so:

C_{4}H_{6} = butyne

There is only one left!

C_{2}H_{2} = ethyne

The rest was fairly easy. Let me know if you need any help with it. My feet are too cold to write it now – I need to go for a walk!

Thanks for reading. Sincerely.

- Tanya Khovanova’s fascinating Math blog
- Russian Internet Linguistics Olympiad
- how how is it inside a hot-air balloon?

The formulae for six chemical compounds and their names are given below in mixed order:

C_{3}H_{8}, C_{4}H_{6}, C_{3}H_{4}, C_{4}H_{8}, C_{7}H_{14}, C_{2}H_{2}

Heptene, Butyne, Propane, Butene, Ethyne, Propyne.

- Match the formulae with their names. Explain your solution.
- Write the names of the compounds with the following formulae: C
_{2}H_{4}, C_{2}H_{6}, C_{7}H_{12} - Write the formulae for the following elements: propene, butane.

Chemistry was my bugbear science in school – I could not see all the patterns and so I had to memorise stuff. It did make more sense to me when I had learned more Physics however. Maybe our highschool teachers tried to shield us from the complexities of atomic interactions, but by not explaining it deeply, they made the reactions seem somewhat ‘magical’, and that ain’t science.