Let us hie to the stone-extraction site and propel projectiles earthward therein.
Yes, ok, so as men of science we should freely admit that the first experiment demonstrates convective cooling instead of adiabatic pressure-induced thermodynamic flux, but, what if, I say what if the experimenter pursed his lips and blew air not directly into the air but through the most venerable of all scientific instruments, a paper towel tube? Aha! Hewitt doesn’t look so wrong now, does he?
Pervert
A Youtube video is wrong about science? My world lies in tatters. 
You’re just begging to be thrown into a quarry, here.
I broke Newton’s Third Law once.
The Third Law responded by breaking me.
I wouldn’t have minded so much if the majority of the cooling effect he observed were due to adiabatic expansion. That would have been a matter of him being “mostly correct,” as was the case for Newton and Aristotle. But in the video, he was mostly wrong, and I think that’s a disservice to his students.
Explaining the effect verbally isn’t too hard. Coming up with practical examples that all or most of the students can relate to? That’s slightly more difficult, given that most folks don’t often encounter situations in their daily life where they directly experience the effects of adiabatic expansion/compression. But not impossible.
One that I can think of involves using a hand pump to inflate a bicycle tire: by the time you’re done, the tire’s valve stem will be hot to the touch, because you’ve been compressing air to 60 psi (or 100 psi, depending on the tire), which heats it up before jamming it through the valve stem and into the tire.
Conversely, any mechanic who has changed a car or motorcycle tire knows that when you remove the valve core to let all the air out, the valve stem will be cool to the touch (after the air has stopped flowing), because of adiabatic expansion of the air as it exits (the effect is there on bicycle tires too, it’s just harder to observe because the tire is typically emptied before the valve stem gets very cool).
Those are two demos you easily could do in the classroom. Start with a half-inflated bicycle tire (to save time), and have a volunteer pump it up to full pressure, then feel the valve stem. Likewise, start with a fully inflated car tire (for best effect start with a 60-psi mini-spare), remove the valve core and let it deflate - and then have a volunteer feel the valve stem.
Another really good one for the classroom is a fire piston, which demonstrates that if you compress air enough, you can get it hot enough to actually ignite things.
What are you talking about?
How about giving students CO2 fire extinguishers and allowing them to give each other frostbite? Or would schools not allow it?
In this house, we obey the laws of motion!
Newton’s Third Law says that particles exert equal and opposite forces on each other.
In electrodynamics, particles do not exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Look at page 148 of Principles of Electrodynamics by Schwartz.
Mine too, only it was a typo.
Our 7th grade science teacher used to blast a CO2 extinguisher into the air for exactly this purpose. Snow, noise, adiabatic expansion, perfect middle-school lesson. One year, she was unaware that the extinguisher had been replaced with the dry chemical variety. Doused everybody with fine yellow powder, and pissed off the janitor.
You could get a can of “Dust-Off”, which is really just a can full of a fluorocarbon blowing agent (1,1 difluoroethane).
Hold it upright and squeeze the trigger, you just expand vapor across the valve. It is a tiny bit colder than the can, but not really discernable.
Then hold the can upside down and squeeze the trigger. You will be flashing liquid in the can across the valve, and the resulting vapor leaving the can is much colder.
A more accurate statement of the law would be that things exert equal and opposite forces on each other. I’m actually rather fond of the example that you mention, because it illustrates that the particles are not actually exerting forces on each other, and that there’s another thing in the problem that is exerting forces and having forces exerted on it. But the force of particle A on the field is, in fact, exactly equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force of the field on particle A, and likewise for B.
Also crappy science instruction. If you’re flashing liquid to vapor, now you’re demonstrating evaporative cooling, not adiabatic expansion.
That interpretation came long after Newton’s day. Rather than argue the fine point of whether a particle can exert a force on a field, let me amend my statement to: According to standard textbooks such as those of Schwartz and Goldstein, the Biot-Savart force violates Newton’s Third Law.
Regardless, the equation of motion of a rocket has nothing directly to do with Newton’s Third Law. The rocket exerts a force on its exhaust and the exhaust exerts an equal and opposite force on the rocket - so what? That’s true when the rocket is still bolted to the launch pad, and for that matter is true of the force a building exerts on its foundation. The usefulness of a rocket is that it accelerates, but Newton’s Third Law says nothing about motion. Explaining the operation of a rocket solely in terms of the 3rd Law, as this NASA site does, is no explanation at all.
On the other hand, Euler’s generalization of Newton’s Second Law to an open system gives the rocket’s acceleration in terms of the forces on it and the rate of change of its mass.
This is maybe more of a General Question, but what are the forces acting on the rocket that make it move?
Yick. Don’t do that now, though; they started putting a bitterant in Dust-Off (and every other brand I’ve ever seen) a few years ago to discourage inhalant abuse. Now, you don’t even want to spray too much gas at once, or things start to taste really, really bad just from just from the gases in the air. And definitely don’t touch anything that has gotten the liquid on it until it’s been washed thoroughly. And don’t eat anything after using it unless you’ve washed your hands off thoroughly too, because there’s a good chance your food will taste horribly bitter.
Was it one of the Cake Fart videos? There’s certainly gaseous expansion going on, not sure if it adiabatic though.