sethoflagos

Perhaps you could thicken your reagents by adding - 15% by weight plain tissue paper and grinding it into a thick slurry. This should adhere pretty well to your surface and keep the surface evenly wetted via capilliary action. When you're done, a quick rinse under the tap will remove it immediately. There shouldn't be any adverse reactions since the cellulose fibres will almost certainly have seen both high alkalinities and aggressive bleaching during manufacture.

The Baalbek quarry is close by and a little higher than the site where the trilithons were placed. No need to lift. Other than people power, placement would appear to need little more than a well-levelled road, rollers, rope and capstans, all of which the Romans could manage quite routinely, yes? Not saying that it was an easy job, they seem to have given up after installing three (up to 800 tonnes each), leaving at least three more unfinished back in the quarry. However, with a simple solution staring us in the face, why go looking for a more far-fetched explanation?

The OP has clearly gone for an extreme scenario to gain attention. He could just as easily have loaded his megalith onto an adequately large barge and pulled it along a conventional canal or pre-existing waterway. This technology was not beyond our forebears and the underlying physics is moreorless identical. It's just a little less clickbaity.

To be fair, I never actually mentioned Archimedes. Whether his principle 'applies' or not depends on how you visualise it, and it is clear from the posts here that there is quite a variety in these visualisations. Rather, I simplified by picking a convenient horizontal reference plane (the base of the monolith is an obvious candidate) and checked for isostatic equilibrium. ie that any given area (A) on that plane supported a vertical column of mass m such that m/A was constant. (and where mg/A equals gauge pressure) Hence a small mass m1 acting on a small area A1 will be in isostatic equilibrium with (ie 'balances' or 'floats') a large mass m2 acting on an area A2 iff m1/A1 = m2/A2 This approach also immediately identifies @swansont's vertical wooden pole as a significant mass acting on a small area. Hence it requires a much larger liquid depth to establish isostatic equilibrium than a horizontal pole would. Beats worrying about individual buoyancy forces anyway.

I think I'm going to treat this as 'information only'. m1/a1 = m2/a2 is the relation to focus on. I refer and defer to @J.C.MacSwell

No. Hydraulic pressure is determined by the depth of the liquid column, irrespective of its cross-section. So a 2" depth of mercury will float a 12" depth of rock (using your figures). Even if the mercury connects to the atmosphere via a pinhole. However, the rise of the rock vs the fall of the mercury level is in proportion to their respective cross-sectional areas. This ratio is also called the 'mechanical advantage' which can permit say 1 kg of mercury to lift say 1 tonne of rock.

Static pressure is all you need. A 1 metre thick slab of rock exerts of the order 3,000 kgf per m^2 on the surface supporting it. Mercury could provide that supporti at a depth of 3,000/13,600 = 0.221 m If the mercury surface level is >0.221 m above the bottom of the channel, the rock floats. Increase the mercury level, the rock slab rises accordingly. The pump wasn't introduced in response to the OP, it was introduced in response to Hence my suggestion that if a rock is being raised, an external source of energy input is required. The OP seems to imply it may be via a bloke with a bucket (which I tend to view as a low technology pump anyway).

Paring down to the raw basics, we have a system that transfers gravitational potential energy from a body of mercury to a body of rock. For the process to continue, the lost gravitational energy of the mercury must be restored by raising it from the bottom of the canal back to the desired surface level. There's always a pump, or something that fulfils that function, even if it's somewhat obscured in the wording. The 1st Law demands it. And yet you can find log flume rides at funfairs all around the world. I'm not seeing any significant difference in principle here. All the OP is really stating is that if you sit a 998 mm cube of granite in a 1000 mm cubic hole, you can float the granite with less than a litre of mercury, which should be an interesting thought if it hadn't previously occurred. Personally, I find this site entertaining when it presents such 'theoretical' surprises. The real-life practical feasibility of transporting stone monoliths in a mercury flume is an entirely different kettle of fish. Would you want to do it even if you could? Possibly not, for a number of reasons.

I see this as a false dichotomy. Hydraulic head is hydraulic head whether it is generated statically by an elevated reservoir, or dynamically by some form of pump. The body of fluid physically engaged in the lift doesn't see any difference in the two. The OP employs a statically generated head via the depth of mercury in the canal. But this is by the by. Somewhere along the line mercury had to be raised to the level of the canal surface in order to fill it. There's always a pump in there somewhere to provide the initial input energy.

+1 It's the principle of hydraulic jacking (fracking employs this principle). If the lift height is arbitrarily small, the volume of jacking fluid required is also arbitrarily small.

Uphill? Anything but uphill is just a matter of finding the right lubricant.

The primary argument of your OP was that pelletised wheat straw was a cheaper energy source than diesel. Since the price of both diesel and biofuel are determined primarily by demand (ie not production costs) this is a good indication that in general the reverse is true. Otherwise wood burning locomotives would simply have converted to general biomass fuels and still be with us. @swansontand @exchemisthave aleady listed a number of associated costs that you have ignored in your analysis. A few more might be: * Solid biomass fuels need to be heat dried whereas liquid hydrocarbon fuels are dried by gravity settlement. * Pelletised biomass burns far more slowly than hydrocarbon aerosols requiring a much bigger combustion zone - increased capital costs. * Pelletised biomass requires ~40% higher excess air to approach the combustion efficiency of liquid HCs - lower useful energy output. And if we start to consider the environmental impact: * The combination of low efficiency and high fuel oxygen content sends the CO2 produced per kJ of shaft energy through the roof. Coal is environmentally less damaging than this proposal.

I once held this view, and to a certain extent it served a purpose. But in recent years I've come to think differently. Whatever else it does, life appears to be an extremely efficient way of producing novel structures from simpler lower entropy resources. And not just by the evolutionary process of 'faulty' self-replication, but also in the reshaping of local environments, and now exponentially so in the products of our technologies. As agents of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, life processes appear capable of converting homogeneity to diversity many orders of magnitude more effectively than non-biological processes. And while the 2nd Law does not consciously create each new biological structure (obviously), it spontaneously redistributes energy flows away from preexisting pathways and into any new outlets made available to it, and hence actively favours and fuels evolutionary divergence. The 2nd Law favours us because we provide it with new avenues to explore, and has provided us with a broad array of individual drives and preferences to maximise the production of those new horizons. So ... ... existentialism appears to be strongly encouraged by the 2nd Law. Even if it can seem a little scary at times.

Thanks! Two neon atoms in an otherwise empty small box. They collide. Where is the sound?

I think you know very well that the air inside the Albert Hall is not condensed matter. Therefore it doesn't support normal modes of oscillation. Therefore it doesn't transmit phonons. When I visualise High C, I visualise some emergent residue of say 10^30+ air molecule collisions. A residual vector of the time averaged exchange of momentum having some detectable periodicity in the vicinity of 1046.5 Hz. Trying to ascribe a spatial size to a momentum vector, or an emergent property such as sound seem to me as ludicrous as assigning a spatial size to temperature, the colour green, or perceived beauty. Or photons come to that.

The Maxwell Equations I believe. But I'll have to leave it to someone else to guide you through the niceties of those.

Then how would light manage to traverse deep space where it's interactions with matter particles are exceedingly rare? Are you proposing the resurrection of the luminiferous aether?

Good! Now compare and contrast with your assertion in the OP So why are you assigning a physical size to photons? Forget the transmission medium, that's irrelevant to the topic. Both light and sound propagate outward as expanding spherical disturbances in their respective fields. At this level, they have no meaningful physical size, but they carry a certain amount of energy that extends over a certain sphere of influence. Where apparent conflicts begin is when we consider the transfer of an individual packet of light energy between an emitting particle and an absorbing particle. How does a specific accurately directed packet of energy 'condense' from a diffuse spherical wave? This is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. The quantum world is a strange one and most of its workings seem to play out not in our observable material universe, but in a complex space we can never directly observe. All we can say with any certainty is that the transfer is observed to occur. The image we see maybe of an emitter firing a 'billiard ball' of energy at an absorber. But is this really a full and true reflection of actual events? I wouldn't put money on it.

Your post evaded answering my question by introducing diversionary anthropocentric observer dependent contingencies. Ideas like these (Schrodinger's Cat is a typical example) strike me as being solipsistic, which I see as leading the unwary towards... well, I've already told you where I believe that bus terminates. No more than a friendly warning. So no, I wasn't insulting you. However, even if the ears are deaf, the bottle is still full of sound.

I put quite a bit of thought into asking you a question that I thought might help you break free of a misleading mental picture (trap) that I was also (and occasionally still am) prone to falling into. It is a bit disappointing therefore that instead of answering my question after due consideration, you treated me to a spontaneous party political broadcast on behalf of the solipsist party. Good luck with that one. Planet Narcissus can be a pretty lonely place to inhabit.

You seem to be equating the physical size of a particle with the sphere of influence it may exert on a field. What would you say was the physical size of a soprano's high C? Is it the size of a large concert hall? ... The sound of a strong soprano can certainly fill one. Or is it just the air molecules inside the Albert Hall jiggling around in a slightly more ordered pattern than normal?

There are many mechanisms through which evolution may occur, but let's take the simplest A virus can undergo an inheritable point mutation of a single nucleotide base in its genome, altering its protein expression in a manner that effects either positively or negatively the new strain's fitness for survival. A fruitfly can undergo an inheritable point mutation of a single nucleotide base in its genome, altering its protein expression in a manner that effects either positively or negatively the new strain's fitness for survival. Darwinian evolution is totally indifferent to where you pin your arbitrary classification of 'life'. It simply identifies any parent-offspring relationship and acts on it without any prejudice whatsoever. Virus, fruitfly, prion particle, or humanity, it's all grist to the mill. You seem to be pretty upset by this concept (all capitals, thirteen exclamation marks, negative reps and complaints to management upset apparently). Perhaps it's time to ask yourself whether the object that you're clutching onto for dear life is a lifebelt or a lead weight.

So you're quite happy to accept that dead things can be subject to Darwinian evolution but living things cannot? Really?

Over the last couple of years, earth's entire population has witnessed and observed the real-time evolution of coronavirus.

What is your understanding of the word 'machine'? Stars are machines. In that they convert mass into electromagnetic radiation. And yet they seem to self assemble from merely a locally higher than average abundance of hydrogen. No apparent intervention by any 'designer' here.