Carbon Dioxide

Topic

New Reply

Why does red text turn upside-down in the neck of the glass, where as blue text does not???

Reply | Quote

Replies

DID HE DECODE DIOXIDE – I DID

Reply | Quote

Your text will not turn upside down at all!!!

Reply | Quote

Your text will not turn upside down at all!!!

Reply | Quote

DID HE DECODE DIOXIDE – I DID

Reply | Quote

First thought is that the stem of the glass is behaving as a (variable) convex lens.
The word “carbon” is outside the focal length, while the “dioxide” sits less than a focal length, from the focal plane.

OTOH, maybe I’m up the wrong tree altogether.

Alan

Reply | Quote

Interesting, try — but most definitely up the wrong tree there!!!

Reply | Quote

Interesting, try — but most definitely up the wrong tree there!!!

Reply | Quote

Alan – I think that the answer to your post is WOOF.

I wonder if it works for “carbon dioxide”?

Reply | Quote

Alan – I think that the answer to your post is WOOF.

I wonder if it works for “carbon dioxide”?

Reply | Quote

First thought is that the stem of the glass is behaving as a (variable) convex lens.
The word “carbon” is outside the focal length, while the “dioxide” sits less than a focal length, from the focal plane.

OTOH, maybe I’m up the wrong tree altogether.

Alan

Reply | Quote

It did turn upside down. Dioxide is the same upside down it is symmetrical

Steve

Reply | Quote

Symmetrical is the key !
See tony’s answer in post 414132 to get a great example!

Reply | Quote

Symmetrical is the key !
See tony’s answer in post 414132 to get a great example!

Reply | Quote

It did turn upside down. Dioxide is the same upside down it is symmetrical

Steve

Reply | Quote

It was being viewed in a mirror.

Reply | Quote

It was being viewed in a mirror.

Reply | Quote

I would guess that: Red light refracts differently then blue light, different part of the spectrum, different angle? Not sure….

Reply | Quote

Drew – this is the common misconception. It actually has nothing to do with the colours and refraction of light!
It’s just a great trick!

Reply | Quote

Got it. DIOXIDE is upside down too, just like Carbon is, but DIOXIDE is the same upside down or not. DUH! Don’t know why I didn’t catch that. It wouldn’t work if you used carbon dioxide, instead of CARBON DIOXIDE.

Reply | Quote

YEP, HAS TO BE CAPITALS — and i’m not screaming, just stating a point!

Reply | Quote

I’d still maintain that the same effect could be achieved with two appropriate convex lenses, but I realize that the simpler and therefore more elegant solution is usually the preferred one.

Alan

Reply | Quote

Three cancave and one convex lens held diagonally between each other will also trick the mind when held cross-diagonaly under the word DIOXIDE, but only if written in green highlighter. Not so elegant, but mostly prefered if some beverage intake was more than sufficient!

Reply | Quote

Three cancave and one convex lens held diagonally between each other will also trick the mind when held cross-diagonaly under the word DIOXIDE, but only if written in green highlighter. Not so elegant, but mostly prefered if some beverage intake was more than sufficient!

Reply | Quote

I’d still maintain that the same effect could be achieved with two appropriate convex lenses, but I realize that the simpler and therefore more elegant solution is usually the preferred one.

Alan

Reply | Quote

YEP, HAS TO BE CAPITALS — and i’m not screaming, just stating a point!

Reply | Quote

Got it. DIOXIDE is upside down too, just like Carbon is, but DIOXIDE is the same upside down or not. DUH! Don’t know why I didn’t catch that. It wouldn’t work if you used carbon dioxide, instead of CARBON DIOXIDE.

Reply | Quote

Drew – this is the common misconception. It actually has nothing to do with the colours and refraction of light!
It’s just a great trick!

Reply | Quote

I would guess that: Red light refracts differently then blue light, different part of the spectrum, different angle? Not sure….

Reply | Quote