Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

You're quoting the biggest Pats homer on the board - I'm pretty sure he was trying to be funny in a mocking way. I can understand missing the "funny" of course.

 

[Old Smiley]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.I do

I don't think the refs should be raked over the coals, though. The balls were fine. It was just some stupid little ploy the Colts did to try to get in the Pats head. Flakey owner makes for flakey team. (Sucks for beautiful nerd Andrew)

 

[ROCKET]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

You realize I was only pointing out how this will be spun going forward by the haters? It's obvious that this will be their angle after the Pats are exonerated. Get ready for it after this is resolved.

 

[GoBirds]

12punch, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

GoBirds, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Leroy Hoard, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:Leroy Hoard, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

Witz, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:Witz, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

12punch, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:12punch, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:I can perfectly understand the inferiority complex, or little man's syndrome, from fans of 31 other teams who need to find some reason the pats are repeatedly whipping their collective asses every year.

2004

Rip Van Pats Fan.

And they wonder why everyone love it when they get caught cheating.

of course we don't wonder --- that was just explained to you, and you even quoted it.

some of you salty trolls maybe need some caffeine or adderall, or something

How would there be an inferiority complex, it's been over 10 years since your last Superbowl and none of them since last time you were caught cheating? I'm not sure you are in reality.

 

[Doug B]

Ballboy walks in to the head with a bag of 12.5 PSI footballs ... then walks out with a different, but identical, bag of 10.5 PSI Brady specials.

 

[12punch]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

You're quoting the biggest Pats homer on the board - I'm pretty sure he was trying to be funny in a mocking way. I can understand missing the "funny" of course.

excuse me?

 

[12punch]

Ballboy walks in to the head with a bag of 12.5 PSI footballs ... then walks out with a different, but identical, bag of 10.5 PSI Brady specials.

in the movie he'll be played by matt damon

 

[Godsbrother]

ROCKET, on 27 Jan 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:Almost forgot to ask: When someone finds a video of some guy going into a bathroom with a bag of balls and deflating 12 balls 2 psi in 90 seconds please link. TIA.

That's what I think will save them...no way there is a camera in a 1 stall bathroom so there will never be absolute proof.

Honestly not sure about how hard it is to deflate.....I assume you just stick the needle in and squeeze some air out? I only have inflated my balls.

So you can't come up with a logical approximate time it would take for someone to deflate 12 balls in a bathroom? If the guy had 90 seconds from the time he opened the door to the time he came out that would (by my math) leave him roughly 7 seconds per ball?

Sound plausible to you?

The problem is the logistics of opening the bag, pulling out a ball, deflating, setting on the floor (you dont want to risk deflating the same ball twice), getting the next ball, repeat 11 times, then stuffing them back into the bag without balls rolling all over the place, all in 90 seconds.

You'd almost surely need accomplices, which if this was what the Pats schemed to do, why not have a couple guys waiting in the bathroom to execute it. The video would tell that story. Maybe it did, but you'd think that would have been leaked for sure.

It would be pretty easy to do in 90 seconds. Open the bag wide, take a needle, stick it in each ball for about 3 seconds, and move to the next. But the question is why? Why are we assuming that he committed a crime? Whats the point? Just because the balls were deflated a little bit during the game? We've already established, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, that weather alone can provide for a significant reduction in psi. So why the need for a rogue ballboy?

Weather would not affect just the Patriots balls. You can take weather out of it.

Like I said before, the scientific ignorance is staggering. I love how people think the Ideal Gas Law does not apply, because unverified reports say that the PSI of Colts balls did not change.

Colder weather lowers football PSI. That is a scientific fact. Do you have any scientific proof that the Colts football PSI did not change?

No but I do know the Colts aren't the team being investigated. If cold weather was enough to explain the difference then the NFL would have dealt with this debacle days ago. Heck they wrapped up the entire Spygate fiasco in 4 days without ever even looking at the taped evidence which was destroyed in Foxboro and not NFL headquarters.

Do you think the NFL wants this kind of controversy leading up to the Super Bowl?

 

[ROCKET]

ROCKET, on 27 Jan 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:Almost forgot to ask: When someone finds a video of some guy going into a bathroom with a bag of balls and deflating 12 balls 2 psi in 90 seconds please link. TIA.

That's what I think will save them...no way there is a camera in a 1 stall bathroom so there will never be absolute proof.

Honestly not sure about how hard it is to deflate.....I assume you just stick the needle in and squeeze some air out? I only have inflated my balls.

So you can't come up with a logical approximate time it would take for someone to deflate 12 balls in a bathroom? If the guy had 90 seconds from the time he opened the door to the time he came out that would (by my math) leave him roughly 7 seconds per ball?

Sound plausible to you?

The problem is the logistics of opening the bag, pulling out a ball, deflating, setting on the floor (you dont want to risk deflating the same ball twice), getting the next ball, repeat 11 times, then stuffing them back into the bag without balls rolling all over the place, all in 90 seconds.

You'd almost surely need accomplices, which if this was what the Pats schemed to do, why not have a couple guys waiting in the bathroom to execute it. The video would tell that story. Maybe it did, but you'd think that would have been leaked for sure.

It would be pretty easy to do in 90 seconds. Open the bag wide, take a needle, stick it in each ball for about 3 seconds, and move to the next. But the question is why? Why are we assuming that he committed a crime? Whats the point? Just because the balls were deflated a little bit during the game? We've already established, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, that weather alone can provide for a significant reduction in psi. So why the need for a rogue ballboy?

Weather would not affect just the Patriots balls. You can take weather out of it.

Like I said before, the scientific ignorance is staggering. I love how people think the Ideal Gas Law does not apply, because unverified reports say that the PSI of Colts balls did not change.

Colder weather lowers football PSI. That is a scientific fact. Do you have any scientific proof that the Colts football PSI did not change?

No but I do know the Colts aren't the team being investigated. If cold weather was enough to explain the difference then the NFL would have dealt with this debacle days ago. Heck they wrapped up the entire Spygate fiasco in 4 days without ever even looking at the taped evidence which was destroyed in Foxboro and not NFL headquarters.

Do you think the NFL wants this kind of controversy leading up to the Super Bowl?

Yeah because we know the NFL has been spot on recently with their investigations and handling of such pr matters.

 

[Godsbrother]

ROCKET, on 27 Jan 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:Almost forgot to ask: When someone finds a video of some guy going into a bathroom with a bag of balls and deflating 12 balls 2 psi in 90 seconds please link. TIA.

That's what I think will save them...no way there is a camera in a 1 stall bathroom so there will never be absolute proof.

Honestly not sure about how hard it is to deflate.....I assume you just stick the needle in and squeeze some air out? I only have inflated my balls.

So you can't come up with a logical approximate time it would take for someone to deflate 12 balls in a bathroom? If the guy had 90 seconds from the time he opened the door to the time he came out that would (by my math) leave him roughly 7 seconds per ball?

Sound plausible to you?

The problem is the logistics of opening the bag, pulling out a ball, deflating, setting on the floor (you dont want to risk deflating the same ball twice), getting the next ball, repeat 11 times, then stuffing them back into the bag without balls rolling all over the place, all in 90 seconds.

You'd almost surely need accomplices, which if this was what the Pats schemed to do, why not have a couple guys waiting in the bathroom to execute it. The video would tell that story. Maybe it did, but you'd think that would have been leaked for sure.

It would be pretty easy to do in 90 seconds. Open the bag wide, take a needle, stick it in each ball for about 3 seconds, and move to the next. But the question is why? Why are we assuming that he committed a crime? Whats the point? Just because the balls were deflated a little bit during the game? We've already established, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, that weather alone can provide for a significant reduction in psi. So why the need for a rogue ballboy?

Weather would not affect just the Patriots balls. You can take weather out of it.

Like I said before, the scientific ignorance is staggering. I love how people think the Ideal Gas Law does not apply, because unverified reports say that the PSI of Colts balls did not change.

Colder weather lowers football PSI. That is a scientific fact. Do you have any scientific proof that the Colts football PSI did not change?

No but I do know the Colts aren't the team being investigated. If cold weather was enough to explain the difference then the NFL would have dealt with this debacle days ago. Heck they wrapped up the entire Spygate fiasco in 4 days without ever even looking at the taped evidence which was destroyed in Foxboro and not NFL headquarters.

Do you think the NFL wants this kind of controversy leading up to the Super Bowl?

Yeah because we know the NFL has been spot on recently with their investigations and handling of such pr matters.

That's my point. If they could quickly put an end to it because of weather they would have instead of launching yet another investigation that they will likely botch and get hammered by the press.

I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Commander Phillip Queeg

President **** Nixon

Coach Bill Belicheck

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

You're quoting the biggest Pats homer on the board - I'm pretty sure he was trying to be funny in a mocking way. I can understand missing the "funny" of course.

excuse me?

second?

 

[moleculo]

actually, I like the Patriots. I just don't like most Patriot fans on this board.

I thought you were a Broncos guy. My mistake.

You helped me make the decision to buy Broncos season tickets a few years ago. Former ticket holder yourself

I am a broncos guy, but I like the pats too. In general, I like all AFC teams (except, of course, for oakland and KC). I like the pats more than lots of other teams because I respect the hell out of Belichick, i think he is bar none, the best coach of my generation. i think Brady is the best QB of our generation too. I have a lot of good friends who are died-in-the-wool Pats fans. We went to college together in the late 90's. We all rooted for NE in 1996, we all rooted for Den in 1997. There is no rivalry between us - a couple of humorous jokes here and there, but I will be wishing them a good superbowl this year, as they did for me last year.

Besides - as a Bronco fan, I have no animosity towards NE. The only time they have ever beaten the Broncos in the playoffs is when we had a TE playing QB, so nothing was really expected anyways.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Summary

1. The only confession of deliberately cheatinf has come from Aaron Rodgers.

2. The improbable deflation of 11 balls in 90 seconds equates to 8 seconds per ball...we need a second episode of sports science to demonstrate.

3. If the gloves dont fit you must acquit (waves middle fingers at the haters).

Later itches.

 

[Old Smiley]

Hmph. No POS backhanded pseudo-info leak from the league yet today?

 

[espnespn]

ROCKET, on 27 Jan 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:Almost forgot to ask: When someone finds a video of some guy going into a bathroom with a bag of balls and deflating 12 balls 2 psi in 90 seconds please link. TIA.

That's what I think will save them...no way there is a camera in a 1 stall bathroom so there will never be absolute proof.

Honestly not sure about how hard it is to deflate.....I assume you just stick the needle in and squeeze some air out? I only have inflated my balls.

So you can't come up with a logical approximate time it would take for someone to deflate 12 balls in a bathroom? If the guy had 90 seconds from the time he opened the door to the time he came out that would (by my math) leave him roughly 7 seconds per ball?

Sound plausible to you?

The problem is the logistics of opening the bag, pulling out a ball, deflating, setting on the floor (you dont want to risk deflating the same ball twice), getting the next ball, repeat 11 times, then stuffing them back into the bag without balls rolling all over the place, all in 90 seconds.

You'd almost surely need accomplices, which if this was what the Pats schemed to do, why not have a couple guys waiting in the bathroom to execute it. The video would tell that story. Maybe it did, but you'd think that would have been leaked for sure.

It would be pretty easy to do in 90 seconds. Open the bag wide, take a needle, stick it in each ball for about 3 seconds, and move to the next. But the question is why? Why are we assuming that he committed a crime? Whats the point? Just because the balls were deflated a little bit during the game? We've already established, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, that weather alone can provide for a significant reduction in psi. So why the need for a rogue ballboy?

Weather would not affect just the Patriots balls. You can take weather out of it.

Like I said before, the scientific ignorance is staggering. I love how people think the Ideal Gas Law does not apply, because unverified reports say that the PSI of Colts balls did not change.

Colder weather lowers football PSI. That is a scientific fact. Do you have any scientific proof that the Colts football PSI did not change?

No but I do know the Colts aren't the team being investigated. If cold weather was enough to explain the difference then the NFL would have dealt with this debacle days ago. Heck they wrapped up the entire Spygate fiasco in 4 days without ever even looking at the taped evidence which was destroyed in Foxboro and not NFL headquarters.

Do you think the NFL wants this kind of controversy leading up to the Super Bowl?

Yeah because we know the NFL has been spot on recently with their investigations and handling of such pr matters.

That's my point. If they could quickly put an end to it because of weather they would have instead of launching yet another investigation that they will likely botch and get hammered by the press.

I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

 

[Bucky86]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

Who's up? Pats or the NFL?

 

[Old Smiley]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

Who's up? Pats or the NFL?

Pat's have been trading down, so they've got a few saved up.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

Who's up? Pats or the NFL?

I believe it is the Pats serve, but "insiders" do not necessarily respect the rules of the game.

 

[Insomniac]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

Who's up? Pats or the NFL?

I think it's the NFL's turn.

 

[Bayhawks]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

 

[espnespn]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21916171/fire-alarm-goes-patriots-hotel

The fire alarm in the Patriots hotel went off at 1 AM.

Can you imagine the NFL investigation if the fire alarm in the Colts hotel went off in the middle of the night? The Salty Haters would be all over it, claiming that the Patriots sabotaged the alarms.

 

[Road Warriors]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

Who's up? Pats or the NFL?

I think the balls are in the NFL's court right now.

 

[Bayhawks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

 

[espnespn]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ts1o6/are_bill_nye_and_neil_degrasse_tyson_wrong_on/

Don't forget to use absolute pressure (need to add 14.7 PSI to football PSI). A few scientists forgot to do that.

Also, if the balls were measured at halftime, we'd need to use the halftime temperature. It was 50 degrees at the start of the game, but I believe temperature dropped as the game went on?

 

[Road Warriors]

When is today's unsubstantiated rumor scheduled to come in, and by what "insider" who needs to enhance their career visibility?

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21916171/fire-alarm-goes-patriots-hotel

The fire alarm in the Patriots hotel went off at 1 AM.

Can you imagine the NFL investigation if the fire alarm in the Colts hotel went off in the middle of the night? The Salty Haters would be all over it, claiming that the Patriots sabotaged the alarms.

According to a source, Mike Kensil was seen leaving the hotel.

 

[the moops]

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs

 

[amnesiac]

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs

that's why you're not allowed to smoke at the games.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs

What he said.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/compositionofair-090714002610-phpapp01/95/composition-of-air-1-728.jpg?cb=1247549194

 

[randall146]

The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

The bolded is the only part of Belichick's story that I didn't buy. There's no way they give the balls to the refs and actually say "inflate them to 12.5". Just like Rodgers, and everyone else, they give the balls to the refs the way they like them, and let the refs do whatever they do

 

[CapnJB]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

You're not accounting for thermal mass. Just because the air outside the football is 50 degrees it doesn't mean the air inside it would be. I'm not sure two hours (or whatever the time was) would be nearly long enough to cause equilibrium between the two temperatures.

 

[moleculo]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

Looks right, and kudos for you for investigating this on your own.The way folks work this is assume V, n, and R are constant. If you rearrange PV=nRT to read P/T=nR/v, and say nR/V is constant, you can also say the ratio P/T is also constant. Therefore, P/T at time 1 = P/T at time 2, or P1/T1=P2/T2. solving for P2, you get P2=P1*(T2/T1), or the pressure at time 2 = the pressure at time 1 * the ratio between temperature 2 and temperature 1.

You can also see that if T2<T1 (i.e. the temperature dropped), P2 will be smaller than P1 (i.e. the pressure dropped accordingly).

now, to make all of this work, you have to use absolute scales...celcius is relatively arbitrary, 0 is where water freezes and 100 is where it boils. that has no real meaning for atmospheric air, so we use Kelvin instead (when K=0, all atomic motion stops). For pressure, we need to acknolege that when the gauge reads P=0, we still have to account for atmospheric pressure (standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi).

to make the numbers work, you have to convert the temperature to Kelvin (pretty simple conversion) and the pressure to absolute (add 14.7). When you get a resulting pressure, you have to convert back form absolute to gauge pressure (subtract 14.7).

When I do the math, i found that, in the range we are looking at, it takes roughly 20 degrees F to drop the gauge pressure 1 psi.

 

[espnespn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

 

[moleculo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

the bolded is much more complicated, and depends on a LOT of variables. That's not an assumption i'd be willing to comment on.

 

[Bayhawks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

 

[espnespn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

the bolded is much more complicated, and depends on a LOT of variables. That's not an assumption i'd be willing to comment on.

Yes, it depends on a lot of variables. That's why if someone strongly believes that the HeadSmart study was fundamentally flawed, they should post a video of their own experiment disproving it.

If it is true that the Patriots balls were about 1 PSI less, then minor experimental variances won't matter: the gametime weather conditions easily explain the PSI drop, with room to spare.

 

[Bayhawks]

When I said "oxygen," I meant air (ie-they didn't use helium or some other type of gas to fill the footballs).

That being said, my main question was whether I applied the equation correctly. Still not sure if I did, but I appreciate the replies.

 

[12punch]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

 

[12punch]

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs

that's why you're not allowed to smoke at the games.

 

[espnespn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

 

[James Daulton]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

 

[Bayhawks]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

 

[Bayhawks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

 

[12punch]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because it's an incredibly minor detail and nobody in the history of the nfl gives a ####

oh, sry -- I mean other than homeless people ranting about it --- I meant actual normal adults

a couple psi does not make a ####### football ####### flat, unless you're some kind of mental patient

ps

and apparently those balls in green bay you mentioned are pumped way the #### over the limit to begin with , so 0 degrees probably just brings them back down to barely legal (sorry, googlers)

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

well they could say the time the pats used a snow plow to clear a spot for the kicker...but it wasnt against the rules at the time .

spygate...ill give them that one .

what else ?

 

[12punch]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

 

[James Daulton]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because it's an incredibly minor detail and nobody in the history of the nfl gives a ####

oh, sry -- I mean other than homeless people ranting about it --- I meant actual normal adults

a couple psi does not make a ####### football ####### flat, unless you're some kind of mental patient

ps

and apparently those balls in green bay you mentioned are pumped way the #### over the limit to begin with , so 0 degrees probably just brings them back down to barely legal (sorry, googlers)

I would have just thought it would have gotten noted in some random interview after the game by now. If the Pats balls lost 2 psi, another psi or 2 would make a pretty significant difference.

Or it's because the Pats took the air out of the ball themselves.

 

[CapnJB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

In my opinion, a legitimate experiment would have had a control group.

*wanders off*