Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

All I can think of is louis-t Jan 2015 #1
NFL has ruled out the temperature as a factor. eom MohRokTah Jan 2015 #2
They don't believe in physics? trof Jan 2015 #3
They claim that temperature variations... Bad Thoughts Jan 2015 #4
Aha! Now we're parsing. trof Jan 2015 #6
I believe it would have required a 45 degree drop in temperature Bad Thoughts Jan 2015 #8
The temperature was 59 degrees MohRokTah Jan 2015 #5
Yes, but it was raining. Pouring down. trof Jan 2015 #9
It is physically impossible for the balls t deflate by 2 PSI... MohRokTah Jan 2015 #10
The temperature was 50 not 59 at game time. former9thward Jan 2015 #13
Exactly. Barometric pressure changes have an effect too! trof Jan 2015 #15
Using your methodology, I calculated that dumbcat Jan 2015 #18
I agree. former9thward Jan 2015 #19
Joule-Thompson Effect - look it up. jberryhill Jan 2015 #36
Do you actually own a compressor? dumbcat Jan 2015 #43
I guess we need to know what they fill the balls with jberryhill Jan 2015 #44
They fill them with helium so they'll stay in the air longer. randome Jan 2015 #45
Exactly. And that is the crux of the problem dumbcat Jan 2015 #47
There was one article... jberryhill Jan 2015 #48
Of course, one of these would work much quicker: icymist Jan 2015 #20
No question. former9thward Jan 2015 #22
All those fancy calculations do NOT account for the fact that the Colts balls were subject pnwmom Jan 2015 #28
The calculations aren't all that fancy jberryhill Jan 2015 #39
Failure of invalid equilibrium assumptions jberryhill Jan 2015 #38
it's not so much the ambient conditions that are relevant... mike_c Jan 2015 #24
They think the rules of physics apply equally to Colts and Patriots balls. pnwmom Jan 2015 #27
Except the footballs on the other side of the field were and remained properly inflated mythology Jan 2015 #31
Accuweather says based on the temp change the FB's would have deflated by .4 psi not 2 psi Quixote1818 Jan 2015 #7
But the evaporation factor! trof Jan 2015 #11
It was raining, so almost no evaporation was occuring in the moist air Quixote1818 Jan 2015 #50
so balls on one side of field deflate, and those on the other side do not? magic not science on point Jan 2015 #12
Both sides supply the balls they will play with on offence. former9thward Jan 2015 #14
'human intervention'. Ya think? trof Jan 2015 #16
That or God. former9thward Jan 2015 #17
I'm going with God. trof Jan 2015 #21
If there was a simple scientific situation based on storage or testing conditions, pnwmom Jan 2015 #30
Temp was 51 at kickoff. Cali_Democrat Jan 2015 #23
Seems a reasonable possibilty: Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #25
How would that explain the 12th Patriots ball or all 12 Colts balls? pnwmom Jan 2015 #26
It might depend on the internal temperature of the balls before inpection. The temperature drop from Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #32
I read that all 11 balls were at least 2 under, not just one of the balls. pnwmom Jan 2015 #33
There have been conflicting reports: Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #34
If the human intervention took place in the beginning, pnwmom Jan 2015 #35
That's interesting. Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #37
when its cold and I go outside olddots Jan 2015 #29
NO! No! No! KMOD Jan 2015 #40
Perhaps the tapering could have been by using heat Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #42
I think DeflateGate is overblown davidpdx Jan 2015 #41
"Look, you don't understand. There was shrinkage." WinkyDink Jan 2015 #46
I was in the pool! I was in the pool! pintobean Jan 2015 #49
;-) WinkyDink Jan 2015 #51
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another 'DeflateGate' the...»Reply #51