Difference between revisions of "3080: Tennis Balls"
(Added explanation of why the method is inefficient) |
(Added something about title text) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
The tennis ball launcher uses a similar mechanism to a scanning electron microscope: it fires tennis balls, instead of electrons, over a wide range of heights to determine where raised portions(in this case a person) are. This would not be a very efficient method, as the person would likely duck or run away, forcing Cueball and Megan to chase them around. However, the joke is that this height measurement could probably have been completed with a visual assessment, and with far more accuracy than using tennis balls to approximate their height. | The tennis ball launcher uses a similar mechanism to a scanning electron microscope: it fires tennis balls, instead of electrons, over a wide range of heights to determine where raised portions(in this case a person) are. This would not be a very efficient method, as the person would likely duck or run away, forcing Cueball and Megan to chase them around. However, the joke is that this height measurement could probably have been completed with a visual assessment, and with far more accuracy than using tennis balls to approximate their height. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Title text is a reference {{w|quantum tunnelling}}. Though tennis balls were actually creating holes in the wall (which can be considered to be tunnels), which is not what tunneling electrons would do. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Revision as of 02:45, 24 April 2025
| Tennis Balls |
 Title text: After initial tests created a series of large holes in the wall of the lab, the higher-power Scanning Tunneling Tennis Ball Microscope project was quickly shut down. |
Explanation
|
This explanation is incomplete: Created by a SCANNING WIKI BOT. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
A scanning electron microscope produces images of a sample by scanning the surface with a focused beam of electrons. Since Megan and Cueball find electrons too small to work with, they are using tennis balls instead. However, most humans do not see using a microscope[citation needed]. The comic is likely making fun of scientists using electron microscopes so much for their research that they forgot how to see normally, having to build a microscope to see other things.
The tennis ball launcher uses a similar mechanism to a scanning electron microscope: it fires tennis balls, instead of electrons, over a wide range of heights to determine where raised portions(in this case a person) are. This would not be a very efficient method, as the person would likely duck or run away, forcing Cueball and Megan to chase them around. However, the joke is that this height measurement could probably have been completed with a visual assessment, and with far more accuracy than using tennis balls to approximate their height.
Title text is a reference quantum tunnelling. Though tennis balls were actually creating holes in the wall (which can be considered to be tunnels), which is not what tunneling electrons would do.
Transcript
- [Cueball fires eight tennis ball at varying heights using a tennis ball machine, making four "thunk" noises. Megan is standing behind him.]
- [Ten noises come from the right side of the panel. From top to bottom: "Bonk", "Bonk", "Bonk", "Bonk", "Bonk", "OW!", "Bonk", "OW!", "Bonk", "Bonk". Megan has her hand to her chin.]
- Megan: Ok, there's definitely a person over there. Let's do one more pass to try to measure their height.
- [Caption below the panel:]
- Electrons are small and hard to work with, so some scientists have developed a scanning tennis ball microscope instead.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
feels more like a macroscope to me GreyFox (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Weirdly, Wikipedia has pages for pitching machines, bowling machines, and squash ball launchers, but doesn't appear to have one for tennis ball machines. (And no, I'm not going to create one specially for this comic.) 172.71.241.89 08:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_ball_machine Similar? -Anon 172.69.208.203 13:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- OTOH, Wikimedia has a photo and a couple of diagrams of tennis ball machines: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tennis_ball_machines and 3 photos of "Tenniskanon" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Tenniskanon&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image . I checked and the nobody has yet created the Tenniskanon page in nl.wikipedia.org Rps (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I added the comments on even smaller forms of microscopy to the article. I found these in an article I read in a friend's Nature magazine, I've almost never read Nature and this article was so interesting. There was further similar content that I wanted to add but I haven't found the article again to reference it -- there's a kind of microscopy where the energy of the probe is turned way up, so that the sample is actually immediately destroyed by the probe, but by collecting the resulting scattering it can then be reconstructed. This is relevant to the paragraph on the observer effect. There is also some kind of microscopy (pump probe?) that can collect very high-time-resolution imagery. I asked for this article at https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/1k6vfcr/article_miao_j_computational_microscopy_with because as an ex-hobby-software-engineer I found it so interesting that simple computer algorithms could be so powerful somewhere. I think it is sad however that this comic models detached nerds harming a passerby as humor. People who are extensively exposed to a mode of research do indeed tend to apply it to other domains, because it's what they understand, but we also want them to apologize if somebody is injured :) 162.158.154.192 16:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
With amusingly coincidental timing, I was recently made aware of a growing number of scientific papers that describe "vegetative electron microscopes", instead of "scanning electron microscopes", and I figure others here would also find it amusing: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-strange-phrase-keeps-turning-up-in-scientific-papers-but-why The predominant theories to explain it are either that AI was trained on a pair of poorly-digitized papers from the 50s, or a translation error from Farsi, where a single dot makes the difference between "vegetative" and "scanning". Personally I find the latter explanation more likely, or perhaps a combination of the two factors.
Not sure how this concept would translate to implementing a vegetative tennis ball microscope. Maybe replace the tennis balls with brussel sprouts or cabbages. PotatoGod (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- On the translation front, it reminds me of some documents that came into the steel-works that had been part of a project that had had foreign involvement (and translations a2ay from English, then back into English), back in the '80s. There was a mention of "water sheep" which (from one or other translations perhaps being done by non-technical people, mixing up their cognates/etc) turned out to really mean "hydraulic rams". 172.71.178.160 11:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Add comment
