Does An Ipad Full Of Apps Weigh More?

[Coss]

I think I know the answer, but I look forward to replies with reasoning. (Kong this means you)

 

Read the article first...

 

Does an ipad full of apps weigh more?

HANNAH FRANCIS

Last updated 09:31, October 10 2014

 

HEAVY IPAD: It's not noticeable to humans, but scientists say data adds a teensy amount of weight to your gadget.

 

Four months ago, Professor Richard Sinnott received a curious letter in the mail.

 

It contained a $5 note and a plea from an elderly man, asking the University of Melbourne computer scientist to explain how the Kindle e-reader he'd been given for Christmas could possibly store dozens of literary tomes without getting any heavier.

 

"Although my Kindle is a wonderful present, there is one thing that is really puzzling me," the 75-year-old wrote.

 

How can an electronic device hold so much information without getting any heavier?

Richard Sinnott

 

"I now have more than 30 books and many of these contain several hundred pages ... Despite this, the Kindle seems to be no heavier than when it had no books. Surely I must soon be getting to the stage when the Kindle will become quite heavy?"

 

Many readers would assume the query was a joke; in fact that's exactly what Professor Sinnott wondered.

 

He kindly returned the man's money and replied that he needn't worry about overloading his Christmas gift with reading material, unless he planned on clocking up tens of thousands of books – in which case the data storage capacity may eventually run out.

 

But do all the apps and files stored on our devices, such as our iPads, actually weigh something after all?

 

That's what University of California professor John Kubiatowicz argued in comments in a 2011 New York Times article, which has recently been doing the rounds again after CultofMac, an Apple news website, published a post entitled "An iPad filled with apps weighs more than one with nothing installed".

 

We put that claim to several Australian academics, from physicists to electronic engineers, with mixed responses.

 

One said the theory was "baloney"; another labelled it an "urban myth".

 

All said that if it were true, the increase would be so infinitesimal as to be immeasurable – more or less what Professor Kubiatowicz argued.

 

It all rests on Einstein's theory of relativity, which converts energy into mass using the formula E=mc².

 

Professor Sinnott said storing data using flash memory – commonly built into tablets, smartphones and e-readers, including the Kindle – involved holding electrons in a certain position to record the binary code that a computer could read (i.e. 1s and 0s).

 

Holding that position required more energy, therefore mass, according to the formula.

 

Professor Kubiatowicz's conservative estimate of just how much energy that would be was 10–15 joules per bit, converting to 10–18 grams for a 4GB Kindle.

 

That's an attogram; and for readers who don't know what those negative numbers mean, it can also be written as 0.000000000000000001g.

 

In other words, nothing a human being can notice, let alone measure.

 

But while Professor Sinnott supports the Berkeley computer scientist's theory, other experts are doubtful.

 

Macquarie University's Mike Heimlich said the charge of an electron – amounting to "one billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a kilogram" – may in theory add weight in one part of a device, but "someplace else" there would need to be a voltage deficit.

 

As Adelaide University electrical engineer Michael Liebelt put it: "When you store stuff on a USB drive or Kindle, or anything like that, all you're doing is moving electrons around."

 

Professor Liebelt added that while Einstein's formula was valid, "in practical terms you never convert between the two".

 

Whether the device used flash memory or any other type of storage made no difference, he said.

 

Wollongong University's Roger Lewis agreed with Professor Liebelt on the Einstein factor. "That tells you how to convert between energy and mass, but having more energy doesn't necessarily mean having more or less mass," Professor Lewis said.

 

He said the theory that electrons in different energy states could have more or less weight was "far-fetched" but, in principle, "possible".

 

Whatever side of the weight-watchers camp you're on, it helps to put the debate into perspective.

 

Curtin University's Cesar Ortega-Sanchez said the weight difference in question was about "as small as the diameter of a red blood cell compared with the distance from Earth to Jupiter".

 

"It does exist," Dr Ortega-Sanchez said, "but it is too minuscule to be of any relevance or practical use."

 

Except, of course, to make a good headline.

 

- Fairfax Media Australia

[Mekong]

Coss my friend,

 

You have laid down a challenge that even I could not resist in having a nibble at (or is that a byte)

 

The weight of a molecule is based upon Avogados number, for base element of number 1 in the periodic table Hydrogen the figures are Proton 1.67262177 x 10 -27 KG, Neutron 1.674927531 x 10-27 kg and an electron at 9.10938291 x 10- 31 kg.

 

Since an electron is lighter four fold (power) than a neutron it could be argued that running Apps would make ones tablet device lighter and not heavier and ipso facto a charged phone lighter than a discharged one.

 

Why do you keep asking Stupid Questions you know the answers too?

 

[bust]

At first I thought it may have been another Bangkok Missy thread....... I thought weight related to mass and information does not have mass...

[Coss]

Ahh ha, not such a stupid question though.

 

I reckon:

 

if we presume that unused space or memory, is not written with only 1s or only 0s every time it is unused, then the unused memory is in a state of essentially roughly equivalent numbers of 1s and 0s.

 

I assume that for used memory, i.e. an app and it's data, over millions of lines of code, that the net view of such, would be roughly equivalent amounts of 1s and 0s.

 

So the question of which weighs more, data written to memory, or unused memory, is moot.

 

Ideally, they will weigh the same, more or less.

 

Bust, you are correct, weight is related to mass and information does not have mass, but data written to memory involves mass.

 

The order of the 1s and 0s does not, ergo information has no mass or weight.

 

Not that judgments handed down, are not weighty, your honour...

[bust]

Coss is it data mass or is it energy?

[Coss]

neither, it's order

[Mekong]

Coss

 

Referring to my previous about molecular weight Proton 1.67262177 x 10 -27 KG, Neutron 1.674927531 x 10-27 kg and an Electron at 9.10938291 x 10- 31 kg. (relating to hydrogen atom One could say that a Logic 0 is a Neutron and a Logic 1 is an Electron thereby 1's weigh less than 0's.To cut down on weight do vendors format their SD cards or Memory 1111,1111,1111,1111 as opposed to 0000,0000,0000,0000 I am being lazy and only working up to FFFF or 65535 I know 2 to the power of 16 is 65536 but one has to remember that Zero is also a number.

 

But is there actually a mass balance transfer? the basics of electricity is electrons jumping into neutrons i.e. the big fat 1's Jumping into the hole that the 0's leave but then the 1 vacates a space and becomes a 0 thereby maintaining equilibrium yes there is a molecular change and hence forth a weight change on a sinusoidal cycle but the mass balance remains the same.

 

​Personally I prefer 220,000 Volts but the principles are the same.

 

​May I vote this as the most stupid thread ever started on this forum and there fore myself as the saddest person to post replies

[Coss]

"but the mass balance remains the same."

 

There y'are then.

[Coss]

OK then what about this?

 

You are riding on a motor bike in the rain at 20 km/h. The rain is falling in constant sized drops and at a steady rate of 1,000 drops per horizontal square metre, per second.

 

If you increase your speed to say 40km/h, over a set distance, say 10 km, will you get more or less wet?

[radioman]

ooh, my ead urts!

Electrics eavy man, when I put my finger in the wall socket it urts, an vats eavy!