Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, “why do airplanes fly?” on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: “Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof.”
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
“First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
- If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
- If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, “that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you” and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true…Thus, hell is exothermic.”
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
Admin Edit: Before we get 1000′s of comments from retards telling us to check snopes, we already have. This is the relevant snopes article.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
This is freakin amazing.
What is even MORE amazing is that it was actually written in 1920 and not 1997.
this is completly insane
Simply Geniuos!
This made me laugh so much! Who ever wrote this deserves a medal!! :L
I hope this is the guy who got an A
A perfect analysis and perfect example of like question-like answer.
funny and blasphemous! WIN
Wow dude, i actually want to marry you!
This guy is a genious.
Legendary… just legendary…
Actually, basic physics states that “existence” does not necessarily indicate the presence of mass. For example, light has energy and momentum but no mass. For souls to exist, they do not necessarily need to be massive. This in turn puts the first postulate into doubt and hence reveal the deductive nature of the entire argument. Of course, the point was to take one direction, one hypothesis, and turn it into ten points using seemingly logical arguments. Lastly, a vessel with a relatively high inflow of mass and a relatively low increase of volume does not always indicate an exothermic reaction. The parameters of the scenario must be defined; what does the question mean when it asks whether Hell is endothermic or exothermic? Does it mean Hell as a system, or does it mean the constituents of Hell? Either way, the solution given does not fit the definitions of “endothermic” or “exothermic.” An endothermic reaction occurs when the products have more energy than the reactants, thus energy was consumed in the process. An exothermic reaction indicates the opposite, in which heat is released. The jamming of mass into a container does not directly correlate to a spontaneous commencement of chemical reactions. In thermodynamics, this is called a “bomb calorimeter.” In this case, Hell is neither endothermic nor exothermic. The increased heat caused by the increase in mass is simply the result of the kinetic energy of the particles, not the transformation of chemical energy into heat in chemical reactions. The kinetic energy of the added mass comes from the outside environment. Thus, Hell takes in energy at first. However, when the “bomb” blows, all the energy is released. Generally, in the end, there is not net gain or loss in energy by that scenario. Lastly, only an isolated system can be considered when talking about whether a reaction is endothermic or exothermic – but that is just another technical point.
Ultimately, the point is that the question is inappropriate, especially for the final exam of a high-level college course in a very technical field. Also, what seemed like a brilliant response by the student can be viewed as scientifically shallow. It is evident that the “easy way out” was enough for this exam. More should be expected from juniors/seniors and graduate students at university.
Shut up. It’s funny.
yo u ever heard of jokes?
apparently not! youre one of these guys who doesnt know how to take jokes seriously! get a life man!!!
p.s play fifa!!!
@prothope: Have you seen the name of this site? You just don’t get it do you? And your theory is flawed!
If I were a friend of you,Then I would have given you an Oscar Award!!!
Dude, shut up.
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp
Dear Prothope:
I support your idea of bringing actual logic to the argument.
However, light has energy and momentum. Light also has mass; for example, there is about four pounds of light pressing on the Earth, if you could concentrate it. Thereford, souls would present weight. This, in turn, puts your postulate into doubt and negates your argument denying the deductive nature of the entire argument.
Only in America! It is American – right?
OK, then if we’re NOT supposed to check Snopes, why does Snopes say it’s false?
Pure semantics. The teacher gets an ‘F’.
Boyles’ law only applies at constant temperature. A ‘location’ can not be endothermic or exothermic, only a ‘process’ can be that. Conclusion: nor the student nor the professor knows jack shit about chemistry. Therefore this story is a hoax and thus not funny and certainly not brilliant.
This is by the fhe most awesome answer I have ever seen.
Why is this still here? They provided the link to snipes.com which confirms this answern is fake, yet it is still here. Makes me wonder how many other of the entries are fake.
This po-faced argument that the question is invalid is rather similar to the mental contortions over why ’42′ is the answer to Douglas Adams’s riddle, what is the answer to the question of life, the universe, everything – if you don’t get the hidden meaning then you just make yourself look foolish! (And yes, there really IS a reason why it’s 42!) So, since Doodlebird asks if this Exam answer was written ‘Only in America’ – hey, Man, you don’t have the monopoly! – here’s another little tasty story to make you smile. (Came from a very respected friend, who knows about such things!)
ONLY IN AMERICA!
A Charlotte, NC, lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost “in a series of small fires.” The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued….and won!
In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire,” and was
obligated to pay the claim.
Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the “fires.”
NOW FOR THE BEST PART…
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was
sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.
According to my Friend, this is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the 2002 Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.