Can a monkey outrun a bullet and still save her litter?

[davee123]

I suspect the answer is more elegant than any of DaveE's - it'll be of "the truck with its lights off" variety. The answer is based on information we already know, the trick is the assumptions we apply.

That's what I was kinda looking for-- what assumptions do we make? The question almost explicitly says that he submerges his hands fully into water which is boiling, and keeps them there, in water which remains boiling, for several minutes, such that his hands are in direct contact with the boiling water for the entire duration.

So, either the boiling isn't as bad as we assume it is, and any of us could do the same trick, OR he's special in some way and won't be affected. If it's the former, the only things I can think of are that the water isn't as hot as expected, there isn't as much of it as expected, or the water DOES stop boiling. If it's the latter, then there's some sort of trick with "his hands", which are somehow impervious to boiling water, or won't do "him" any injury.

So, I like the idea that he's got prosthetic hands, as suggested earlier. It's not too "out there", and covers an assumption that we'd probably make (and assumably the judge made too)

DaveE

 

[DaveC426913]

So, I like the idea that he's got prosthetic hands, as suggested earlier. It's not too "out there", and covers an assumption that we'd probably make (and assumably the judge made too)

DaveE

I think that would be a cheating answer. Artifical hands would be a critical clue that we were not given. I think we can safely "assume" his hands are really his hands.

I think it has to do with our assumptions about the boiling water.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

They are on the peak of Mount Everest? In space? Um...

Hm. Possibilities:

1) The water is boiling, but at a lower temperature (as suggested, maybe at extremely high altitudes or in space or something)

2) The water does not sustain its boil

3) The amount of water is insignificantly small

4) He somehow is able to avoid contact with the water

5) His hands are artificial and unaffected by boiling water (or perhaps are already damaged sufficiently so that they aren't negatively affected)

6) "His" hands are not the hands which are attached to his physical body

I think I like number 5 best, though...

DaveE

Both right, the man lives in India and asks if he might be tried before the Gods themselves at the top of a very high mountain peak where a small Budhist shrine sits, the judge impressed once again by his piety acceeds. Of course at the top of the mountain the boiling point of water is much lower and so this and the resultant cold mean the man picks up a couple of handfulls of snow and plunges his hands into the water; he escapes with rather red hands and in some pain but no permanent damage, the man is freed, blessed as he is by the Gods themselves

I figured this'd be an easy one on a physics forum

So yes, altitude matters for boiling. At sea level, water boils at
approximately 100 degrees Celsius. In the Denver area where I live, the
atmospheric pressure is about 83% of that at sea level, and water boils at
about 95 degrees C. Atop Mount Everest, it is about 34% of sea level,
which translates into boiling at about 72 degrees C.

The stones in the bag problem is a derivative of a black and white grape, the person in question quickly pulls out and eats one of the grapes, saying look in the bag, and lo and behold the grape in the bag is black so his must of been white.

A man is told that he is to be sentenced. The judge asks if he has anything to say and the man says, if I can plunge my hands into boiling water and keep them there for a few minutes would this not show that the Gods favoured me, and that I was innocent?

Interested by the mans show of piety the judge acceeds. How does the man plunge his hands into boiling water for a few minutes without sustaining injury? Assume that he has no protective measures on his hands, such as gloves,any sort of barrier.

He's not allowed to wear gloves or a barrier, but carrying snow is not against the rules.

Incidently I think it was Aristotle who first posed the grape problem to one of his students? The student was Alexander the Great. He got it right too.

 

[davee123]

the man picks up a couple of handfulls of snow and plunges his hands into the water; he escapes with rather red hands and in some pain but no permanent damage, the man is freed, blessed as he is by the Gods themselves

I figured this'd be an easy one on a physics forum

Hmm, in looking further at this, I'm not sure this is actually possible. Looking on the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_(injury )

Temperature/Duration until injury:
155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Guess it depends on how much snow he puts in, how quickly the cold water dissipates, and how long until the new water starts boiling (assuming that it's still being heated to keep the boil)!

DaveE

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm, in looking further at this, I'm not sure this is actually possible. Looking on the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_(injury )

Temperature/Duration until injury:
155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Guess it depends on how much snow he puts in, how quickly the cold water dissipates, and how long until the new water starts boiling (assuming that it's still being heated to keep the boil)!

DaveE

I suppose you could take the holding a snowball even further. The problem states that he plunges his hands into boiling water, but it does not say that the water must remain boiling. If he held a 1L snowball in a pot containing 1L of boiling water, then the water temp would rapidly equalize at a very tolerable temp. You'd still want to do it on top of Everest, since that drops the boiling temp enough to forestall the worst of the initial damage.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, since I got it right, I get to ask the next one?

as per post 51:

There exist simple English language sentences composed of only common words that can be correctly spoken but cannot be correctly written down. Provide an example (which will be incorrectly written of course).

 

[davee123]

There exist simple English language sentences composed of only common words that can be correctly spoken but cannot be correctly written down. Provide an example (which will be incorrectly written of course).

I saw this before and I'm not sure I quite follow-- are you saying that it's incorrect grammattically, and hence can't be written down correctly, but is correct when spoken, thanks to something like homophones? I guess I'm not clear on how it could be incorrect when written, unless we're talking about either something that can't be pronounced with the constraints of the Roman character set, or something that's incorrect grammatically which happens to magically be incorrectly interpreted as a correct phrase when spoken. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand how it's possible?

DaveE

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hmm, in looking further at this, I'm not sure this is actually possible. Looking on the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_(injury )

Temperature/Duration until injury:
155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Guess it depends on how much snow he puts in, how quickly the cold water dissipates, and how long until the new water starts boiling (assuming that it's still being heated to keep the boil)!

DaveE

You seem to forget that at that altitude and coldness the water will cool very quickly, assuming he has his hands in the snow for enough time for it to cool and his hands start off at say something close to 10 degrees C(50F) He could get away with it, and note I didn't say without x, just able to do it. Only way to answer this is to do it though but in theory it should be possible.

And question is answered.

I suppose you could take the holding a snowball even further. The problem states that he plunges his hands into boiling water, but it does not say that the water must remain boiling. If he held a 1L snowball in a pot containing 1L of boiling water, then the water temp would rapidly equalize at a very tolerable temp. You'd still want to do it on top of Everest, since that drops the boiling temp enough to forestall the worst of the initial damage.

Exactly don't forget the snow in his hands also. at something close to 0 or most probably much less.

Think of the cooling effect of holding snow at say -15F, now it melts into the liquid at 72c?

 

[davee123]

You seem to forget that at that altitude and coldness the water will cool very quickly, assuming he has his hands in the snow for enough time for it to cool and his hands start off at say something close to 10 degrees C(50F) He could get away with it, and note I didn't say without x, just able to do it. Only way to answer this is to do it though but in theory it should be possible.

Well, I guess I was assuming things that are too reasonable for the sake of the problem. You could admittedly just have his friend stand over the boiling water with 100 liters of 20C water ready to just dump in as soon as he puts his hands into the pot. Or whatever.

The thing that was more worrying to me was that I was assuming you were needing the water at 70+ degrees C (actually looks like that's less than true?), and according to the little chart there, the duration of time you can take contact with temperatures is asymptotic, so you'd only be able to withstand a small fraction of a second of contact with the water before being burned at 72C (which is what I assumed it'd be). And my guess is that if you're talking about your average pot-or-so of boiling water, and handfull-sized chunks of snow as suggested, skin contact with 70+ degree water would be more like 5 seconds rather than a fraction of a second. But at 65C instead (which looks like about what you might expect at Everest's peak?), you've got maybe 2-3 full seconds or so in which to play around with. Still kinda iffy, but I might buy it.

But yeah, I admit you can put some pretty outlandish caveats in there to make it possible if the "boiling water" only has to boil for an instant before becoming simply lukewarm.

DaveE

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This sentence cannot be written down correctly.

What word is always spelled wrong?

 

[davee123]

This sentence cannot be written down correctly.

What word is always spelled wrong?

How would you speak this such that it was correct? Or is this implying that the sentence is false, while grammatically correct?

DaveE

 

[J77]

This sentence cannot be written down correctly.

What word is always spelled wrong?

Umm...

Spelt?

(DaveE: you forgot a comma in your grammatically correct reply )

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Spelt?

Sometimes spelt is spelled correctly. My word is always spelled wrong.

 

[J77]

Sometimes spelt is spelled correctly. My word is always spelled wrong.

Is the word:

wrong

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

wrong

Wrong is right, even though two wrongs don't make a right, and three lefts do.

 

[davee123]

(DaveE: you forgot a comma in your grammatically correct reply )

I did? Actually, now that I've looked at it again, I think I used one comma too many! I think I should've written:

"How would you speak this such that it was correct? Or is this implying that the sentence is false while grammatically correct?"

Where do you think I need an extra comma?

DaveE

 

[J77]

Between this and such, and between false and while - although I'm probably wrong.



(My use of English has been destroyed through writing in a scientific style.)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, I guess I was assuming things that are too reasonable for the sake of the problem. You could admittedly just have his friend stand over the boiling water with 100 liters of 20C water ready to just dump in as soon as he puts his hands into the pot. Or whatever.

The thing that was more worrying to me was that I was assuming you were needing the water at 70+ degrees C (actually looks like that's less than true?), and according to the little chart there, the duration of time you can take contact with temperatures is asymptotic, so you'd only be able to withstand a small fraction of a second of contact with the water before being burned at 72C (which is what I assumed it'd be). And my guess is that if you're talking about your average pot-or-so of boiling water, and handfull-sized chunks of snow as suggested, skin contact with 70+ degree water would be more like 5 seconds rather than a fraction of a second. But at 65C instead (which looks like about what you might expect at Everest's peak?), you've got maybe 2-3 full seconds or so in which to play around with. Still kinda iffy, but I might buy it.

But yeah, I admit you can put some pretty outlandish caveats in there to make it possible if the "boiling water" only has to boil for an instant before becoming simply lukewarm.

DaveE

Don't forget he's doing this in front of the judge so foul play would be detected, it's unlikely anyones going to care much if he puts his hands in the snow or secrets some snow. Everyone'll be assuming it's as hot as it is normally.

If his hands start of cooler than body temp and if he waits only a minute before putting his hands in it should actually already be much less than 72 degrees C(anyone know how quickly water at 72 degrees C would cool at say -10 degrees C, say it's a moderate sized mountain for the area: 20,000 feet?

Considering the atmosphere is very thin very cold and most probably way below zero, I'd say it's possible, even likely that it would work, the person who posed the question in the first place probably got the idea from a real life event. After all he must have known that this would work, the science of the time when the question was first posed would have been non-existent, so they probably would have put it down to all sorts of reasons. This is another question Aristotle was supposed to have asked the young Alexander. I transported it to India just because it sounds more mystical. Probably happened on Mt. Olympus? But considering the peoples the Greeks traded with it could of happened in India.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There is no period at the end of this sentence.

 

[davee123]

Don't forget he's doing this in front of the judge so foul play would be detected, it's unlikely anyones going to care much if he puts his hands in the snow or secrets some snow. Everyone'll be assuming it's as hot as it is normally.

Heh, if the judge can change his mind about the whole thing, I'd wager he wouldn't stand for the guy dumping handfulls of snow in there!

If his hands start of cooler than body temp and if he waits only a minute before putting his hands in it should actually already be much less than 72 degrees C(anyone know how quickly water at 72 degrees C would cool at say -10 degrees C, say it's a moderate sized mountain for the area: 20,000 feet?

Well, he can't wait to put his hands into the boiling water-- at least not the way it's worded. He has to put his hands into water that's boiling. How hot the water is *after* he puts his hands in isn't stipulated, although I'm sure the judge's assumption upon agreeing to the challenge is that the water would stay boiling for several minutes (which is why I think he probably wouldn't accept dumping snow in).

Not sure how quickly it would cool down though at extremely low outside temperatures. We'd need to know how much water there was, and what sort of container it was kept in (a metal pot would cool faster than, say, a ceramic one). Again, you can perform extra cheats that the judge wouldn't take kindly too-- like having an extremely small metal pot which you immediately set into the snow, cooling it faster.

Considering the atmosphere is very thin very cold and most probably way below zero, I'd say it's possible, even likely that it would work, the person who posed the question in the first place probably got the idea from a real life event.

Well, there's also other cheats that might make it possible, like plunging your hand (while clutching a snowball) into a very small pot, displacing the majority of the boiling water onto the ground, and replacing it with the snow, which speeds the cool-down process.

The thing that I'm thinking isn't possible without injury is:
- Pot has about a gallon-or-so of water in it
- Water in the pot is boiling (72+C)
- Man puts both hands in, holding fist-sized snowballs in each hand
- Nothing else is added to the pot
- No water is displaced when he puts his hands in
- Nobody puts the pot into snow (or whatnot) after he submerges

Maybe there's other things I should stipulate, too, I dunno.

There's also another important caveat to the problem. If it IS based in real events, who's to say what "injury" is? 1st degree burns aren't permanant. I could believe that he could handle the above situation and only manage a 1st degree burn-- provided that there's no heat source under the water keeping it boiling. And a 1st degree burn, while painful, isn't permanent. And again, if it IS based on a real event, it may be exaggerated. The deal may have been if they man could *tolerate* his hands being submerged in boiling water without removing them.

DaveE

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I, finally ... figured. it! out?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Only one slice of 1.5 cm can be cut from a loaf which is 22.5 cm long.

This answer doesn't work so good because you can cut the bread without decreasing the length of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no period at the end of this sentence.

This is actualy a really good one though it is not the one I was looking for.

... incorrect grammattically, and hence can't be written down correctly, but is correct when spoken, thanks to something like homophones?...

That is what I was looking for.

"There are three ways to spell the word 'to'."

Easy to say...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Heh, if the judge can change his mind about the whole thing, I'd wager he wouldn't stand for the guy dumping handfulls of snow in there!
Well, he can't wait to put his hands into the boiling water-- at least not the way it's worded. He has to put his hands into water that's boiling. How hot the water is *after* he puts his hands in isn't stipulated, although I'm sure the judge's assumption upon agreeing to the challenge is that the water would stay boiling for several minutes (which is why I think he probably wouldn't accept dumping snow in).

Not sure how quickly it would cool down though at extremely low outside temperatures. We'd need to know how much water there was, and what sort of container it was kept in (a metal pot would cool faster than, say, a ceramic one). Again, you can perform extra cheats that the judge wouldn't take kindly too-- like having an extremely small metal pot which you immediately set into the snow, cooling it faster.
Well, there's also other cheats that might make it possible, like plunging your hand (while clutching a snowball) into a very small pot, displacing the majority of the boiling water onto the ground, and replacing it with the snow, which speeds the cool-down process.

The thing that I'm thinking isn't possible without injury is:
- Pot has about a gallon-or-so of water in it
- Water in the pot is boiling (72+C)
- Man puts both hands in, holding fist-sized snowballs in each hand
- Nothing else is added to the pot
- No water is displaced when he puts his hands in
- Nobody puts the pot into snow (or whatnot) after he submerges

Maybe there's other things I should stipulate, too, I dunno.

There's also another important caveat to the problem. If it IS based in real events, who's to say what "injury" is? 1st degree burns aren't permanant. I could believe that he could handle the above situation and only manage a 1st degree burn-- provided that there's no heat source under the water keeping it boiling. And a 1st degree burn, while painful, isn't permanent. And again, if it IS based on a real event, it may be exaggerated. The deal may have been if they man could *tolerate* his hands being submerged in boiling water without removing them.

DaveE

Well to be honest I may have misremembered some of the details but I think in essence unless you want to introduce all sots of odd scenarios it's possible.

The judge may well know he's put his hands in snow, but he wouldn't know how hot the water is nor that he'd picked up a handful of snow. He said he'd place his hands into boiling water, I supose I didn't specifically state, how long between boil time and his hands going in was.

Incidently Alexander solved it because he had once overheard some shepherds talking about the effect of altitude on boiling water. And he was a clever git as well. Bit of a child prodigy by all accounts.

The water isn't at 72 degrees C after the snow has gone in and after his freezing hands go in, nor is it at 72 when he puts his hands in anyway, water will cool much more quickly in sub zero temperatures and at altitude in a container that's probably metal and radiates heat quickly? He probably would have ended up with red hands but no serious burns, probably have been painful. Anyway it wasn't my quiestion go ask Aristotle.

 

[davee123]

This is actualy a really good one though it is not the one I was looking for.

Yeah, I kinda like Jimmy's approach with that one-- sentences which are false, but grammatically incorrect when true, or visa versa.

"There are three ways to spell the word 'to'."

Isn't that just the same deal, though? IE, grammatically correct, but inaccurate? There really *aren't* 3 ways to spell the word "to" (in English, that is), but there are three distinct ways to spell "to", "two", and "too" respectively. Even then, there are words with more than one accepted spelling, like "color" vs. "colour", or "gray" vs. "grey".

I suppose you could argue that you could have something like:

"I am going two the store"

Which, when you spoke it, would *sound* correct, but actually be incorrect, since the interpretation would be "I am going to the store", which is correct, and possible to write down correctly. It's just that what you *actually* said or meant is NOT possible to write down correctly. But I dunno, that seems kinda like cheating to me...

DaveE

 

[spudguru]

NOt right;
Can anyone answer this?
2) A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms: The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?

the lions ...there dead

 

[spudguru]

Let me ask the Ist Quest:'n.
"1) How much soil is there in a hole measuring one metre by one metre by one metre?"

none i hope ...its a hole

 

[DyslexicHobo]

How about this question: a man is in a bar. He bets the bartender 50$ that he can get a gun, walk 50 feet away, put his hat on a barrel, walk back to the bartender (50 feet away from where he placed the hat), put a blindfold on, spin around 10 times, and shoot the hat. This man has never shot a gun in his life, yet still wins the bet.

How does he do this?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Answer (hat on a barrel): After he put the hat on the barrel, he put it back on his head.
eom

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Ya either what jimmy said or he brings the barrel with him or something.