I have been a little worried that
nobody has been applying math to do good work in recent years. No need to worry anymore. The other day, I chanced on a Live
Science article written by Brandon Spektor that completely allayed
my fears.
Before we dive into this, however, I
would like to engage in a brief side discussion with any Italians or chefs in
the mix.
Here is the deal, Italians and chefs,
we are about to break uncooked spaghetti noodles in the name of science. I realize this is a touchy, if not traumatic
experience for you, but this is all in the name of good science.
For as long people have been breaking
spaghetti noodles, both scientists and commoners have wondered why you cannot
simply snap the noodles into two pieces.
Invariably, the noodles will splinter into three or more pieces.
Charged with solving this mystery, researchers
at MIT applied some math-heavy physics, and a bit of old-fashioned ingenuity,
to the process of breaking uncooked spaghetti.
The nature of the physics involved forced them to invent a machine that
could bend and break spaghetti, one noodle at a time, while an ultra-high-speed
camera captured the event.
After hundreds of ugly pasta shattering
snaps (some that would make the most hardened chef cringe), the researchers found the
formula for snapping spaghetti into only two pieces. The key is to tightly grip the noodle on each
end, twist the pasta at least 250 degrees, and bend slowly until the noodle
reaches its breaking point.
The 250 degree twist is
important. Twisting the noodle enables
energy to be stored and released in more than one mode within the length of the
noodle. Without the twist, the snapped
noodle pieces fling apart with too much kinetic energy, causing secondary fractures
at other points of stress
I will admit, I found this study
fascinating.
Some good work right there.
I am not very good at math, however,
and I don’t have time to invent a pasta breaking machine. So I am wondering if producing half-lengths
of spaghetti at the pasta noodle plant might be a simpler solution.
--Mitchell
Hegman
No comments:
Post a Comment