Don't multiply by avagadro's number so you get something meaningful.
Printable View
Don't multiply by avagadro's number so you get something meaningful.
four.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Yeah, I have to agree with Paulus. I somehow seriously doubt that all the water people drink on earth has passed through someone else's kidneys. It sounds crazy enough to be true at first but if you think about it, there's way too much water on the planet. And, while I'm not sure about this, but isn't new water even being created at the bottom of the oceans near the magma under the crust? Don't quote me on that, but I remember hearing about it on some show once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Sheesh...all i was doing was showing that it was statisically possible no need to be rude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Hydrates? yes there's a lot of them but humans consume them daily so thats not going to stop the molecules getting in, not that it matters though the vast majority of free water in the world stays as free water for a very long time and doesn't get locked up in complexes(which isn't a very long term process in most cases anyway). No idea what your going on about with the quantity of molecules on earth though its not like the water is leaving in any appreciable amount.
The main factor preventing it from getting into your drink is the residence time in the ocean so obviously the number will be smaller but it still would be above 1 molecule per litre. I'm a fourth year chemistry student and spent two of those years studying enviromental chemistry as well so i do have a wee bit of knowledge on the subject
Its how you do the calculation, thats like telling someone not to square the c in E=mc^2 as the answers too big.:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Yeah it's not really new though theres a load of water in the mantle so some comes out during eruptions, crust formation etc. It is also taken down into the mantle at subduction zones but these processes are happening on geological time scales so 2000 years wouldn't be enough time to make a significant difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros Antonius
That's exactly what I was saying. It is only math and you asssume that the water that Alexander drunk has perfectly mixed with all other water on the Earth, what is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Eh, my bad. I thought that was gm/mol when its particles/mol. lol. What I meant is you should have just quoted 3 liters per day. Your calculations give no context for that number nor does it give the average person any sort of relatable scale so its not a very useful statistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Seriously, given the ridiculous amount of water on this planet, the chances are quite small even if you only count the water floating at the surface of the ocean that's gettign evaporated..
Well i've found this thread sufficiently interesting that i have decided to de-lurk and have a crack at it. :idea2:
I figure the hardest step on the road to doing anything long-term will be actually getting a patron/ job where you could get noticed. I'm betting the major trade hubs would be the best spots to start looking, probably more Carthage than Rome as Carthage seems more open to new ideas than a people who considered higher thinking a corrupting foreign influence :beam: . Although the language barrier would be a fair bit smaller in Rome
And my first great re-inventions to greatness? The steam engine of course, with trains and steamships in mind. I figure Carthaginians would love a way to get stuff from A to B much faster, especially against the wind and to avoid those long walks across the desert to take back Cyrene from the Ptolemies.
There is a problem though in the task of re-inventing all the modern conveniences, in that although I know they exist and have a basic idea of how they operate or even how to make them, for the most I don't really have a real understanding of how to make a train or a steam engine or steel for that matter. You would need a team of experts, or as close as you could get to make the first working prototype on any one item. I suspect it would be rather like scientists in some developing country today trying to make a nuke without outside expertise or resources.
Once I have the funding of course I suspect it would be somewhat easy to hire some ancient geniuses or at least kidnap them (Anyone feel like a trip to Syracuse, heard there was a Greek good at math there).
However my real impact would probably be felt more in the social changes I would probably enact as my training has been heavy on Sociology, Social work, Anthropology, History (not a shock on this forum), and Politics. For example I predict Printing press leads to increased education leads to greater literacy leads to increasing middle class leads to moves for greater representation as well as further changes which if not careful leads to increased violence and if very unlucky the Shopet and his family end up being shot in a basement.
But more likely i'll i'll end up asking "What is best in life" and go hang out up north with the sweboz. :laugh4:
Same here. I've always found these "What if..." threads fascinating, even if I generally end up arguing against people's ability to effect major changes quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by grendelfreak
I completely agree on this being the most difficult part. Even now, institutional inertia can present very high barriers to innovation, and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it would have been in 272 BC. At least in the present we have a concept of innovation being beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by grendelfreak
I shudder to think how many social and religious taboos you'd come up against trying to push through major changes in a timeframe that would allow you to enjoy the fruits of your labours.
Steam trains and ships would need high-pressure boilers and I'm pretty sure the metallurgy of the times just isn't up to building these. Rails also presuppose the availability of large quantities of steel, and you'd probably want that for your ships too ("Hey Sophet, I've got a great idea. Let's build a new kind of ship that relies on having a massive fire continually burning inside it!").Quote:
Originally Posted by grendelfreak
I'm still trying to think up quick-win ideas that wouldn't require too much infrastructure to roll out. So far I have:
- Stirrups
- Compass
- Crop rotation
- Germ theory of disease
I'm sure the Org can come up with others.
Does anyone else think this kind of thing would make a good AAR?
Ah fair enough. The amount of water on earth is not the problem it's like Andronikos says the assumption that Alexanders water has mixed completely with that water, thats the deal breaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Good man!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andronikos
Back on topic: Simple things like what Dewirix suggested would be the most effective, stirrups alone would have a major impact on cavalry warfare.
Sadly for most of us being dropped into 272bc with limited knowledge of the languages spoken we'd most likely be sold as slaves and end up shoveling cow shit for the rest of our lives.:no:
The problem with stirrups is that the enemy will adopt them quite swiftly, unlike gunpowder. BTW, guess what is the simplest way to get saltpetre? To dig under a pile of manure (animal or human). That is why saltpetre is called a shitflower. The crystals form under the pile of excrement.
Way of the world I'm afraid. I think you have to leverage your advantage while you have it, but don't plan on continued supremacy. After all, half the time you'll probably be putting down internal rebellions, so the troops you face will be armed in the same way yours are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Urgh wouldn't like that job, although its still better that working in a tannery (possibly one of the worst jobs to be had in the ancient world).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
i think i would add 0 to the world
:suspanse:
seriously if archimedes did all he did in mathematical terms without a 0 imagine what he could achieve with the notion/concept that numbers can be mixed together easily broken or extended
actually the indian numeration (wich the west call erratically arabian ) is trully usefull
even today our numeration is nothing more then a 10 digit representation and in the old days each digit had 1 angle per number to represent them properly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
simple and effective and you could build a financial empire not because you´re smarter but because it´s easyer for you to calculate the amount of interest you can charge more easily :help:
and back on topic the west was forçed to accept the indian numeration cause the italian merchants couldn´t use the roman numeration just as easily so they had harder times calculating the profit margins (when dealing with the arab merchants, thus many times loosing a few coins per deal that according to paretto theory on negociation is the worst thing you can since you give ground and your profit margins become smaller and smaller until you can get no more profit)
Economically speaking... You could also go back in time, manufacture heroin out of poppies, and become the richest man in the world.
Anyone getting that much out of balance is :skull::skull:dead:skull::skull:. I like the Falx though, almost as much as the Daneaxe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontline1944
That is how they got it, try studying the history of Blackpowder and early firearms...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The reenactor said that he tried to let the falx guide itself as much as possible. I imagine that if he put more weight behind it and stepped a bit closer, he would be a little more balanced. Likely their biggest problem was getting the falx out of the scutum after the initial swipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
sounds familiar.:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Standing on one leg leaned over while delivering the blow = suicide, as is getting your weapon stuck. I think he suffers from the same misconception as almost any amateur that picks up a blade; that the harder you swing it and the more weight you put into it, the more succesfull will you be...
That is not the case, a blade is made for cutting, not hacking like an axe, not even a falx-blade. Even a Daneaxe is very effective at cutting, though it delivers deadly whacks as well.
Of course, how do you think I know that archaic method? By reading history books on the early production of gunpowder. From those books I know how to make all sorts of varieties of gunpowder, how to make it explode with horrendously loud noise, how to make it explode in colours, how to magnify the power of explosion, how to quicken the speed of explosion, how to make it resistant to water, etc. Most importantly, I know how to make grainy gunpowder, the most important innovation along with smokeless "powder" and chemical starters that initiate the explosion of the cartridge (the latter two belong to 19th century though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
They used that method with manure in the early stages of the history of gunpowder. In the later stages of gunpowder production, they mined the saltpetre, such as the vast Chilean deposits I mentioned I would exploit if I was to make a Roman voyage to the Americas.