Fire (pine knots)
Mario Petrinovich
monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If that
monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and ignite
resin. -- Mario
pete
If you have access to branch of pine, water, and sun,
then let us know the results of your experiment.
--
pete
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
I will not conduct no experiment. I don' t have time, resources or
knowlage to do proper experiment. Nor I do have a will to do it, because I
just don't care. I don't think it is my place in the Universe to do job like
this. There are people well paid to do this.
Usenet is a place to exchange ideas. And I am using it for this.
-- Mario
pete
The point I was making
is that you will not be taken seriously
because it is very obvious that you don't care about
what you're saying.
There is nobody who is well paid to conduct experiments
by somebody else who claims to have not enough knowledge
to do what a monkey should be able to do.
--
pete
spiznet
I am trying the experiment. I have a pine knot, exposing it to the sun.
Arggh, my fur is burning,,,arrr...
-Spiznet
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
Firstly, it isn't suppose to work every time. You got to have resin,
and water drops at the righ places.
I care about what I am saying, I simply don't care to do anything
about it, since there are people who are paid to do this, and I am not paid.
I am not even paid to do this corespondence with you, I am doing it all for
free. Be thankful. Besides, I am more useful if I am not doing anything,
: ).
Whether I am taken seriously or not, I even care less. The idea is
valid. It will not be any more or less valid if somebody takes me seriously
for whatever reason. I am not dying to be taken seriously. It is not my
great desire to be taken seriously. Being taken seriously has nothing to do
with all this business. Being taken seriously is just a child game (which is
not serious at all, in the first place). -- Mario
Rich Travsky
"in water"?
Let me see if I visualize this as you do:
Sun -> water -> branch with resin
So, the branch is under water? And it's supposed to ignite?
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
Visualize a monkey that was in water before he came to the branch
(or to the pine).
The similar way the great fire after dry season in savanna ignites.
After the first shower of wet season, the fire in savanna ignites. You have
highly combustable dry grass (grass is too dry to be affected by only one
light shower), you have water drops (from the first shower), and the next
day after the shower you have still strong sun. Since you have billions of
dry grass, and billions of water drops, fire easily ignites. -- Mario
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky:
> > Mario Petrinovich:
> >> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
> >> monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If that
> >> monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and ignite
> >> resin. -- Mario
> >
> > "in water"?
> >
> > Let me see if I visualize this as you do:
> >
> > Sun -> water -> branch with resin
> >
> > So, the branch is under water? And it's supposed to ignite?
>
> Visualize a monkey that was in water before he came to the branch
> (or to the pine).
So, he's soaking wet???
> The similar way the great fire after dry season in savanna ignites.
> After the first shower of wet season, the fire in savanna ignites. You have
> highly combustable dry grass (grass is too dry to be affected by only one
> light shower), you have water drops (from the first shower), and the next
> day after the shower you have still strong sun. Since you have billions of
> dry grass, and billions of water drops, fire easily ignites. -- Mario
The monkey is supposed to hold very still for whatever amount of time it
takes to ignite the branch with the resin?
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Rich Travsky:
>> > Mario Petrinovich:
>> >> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
>> >> monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If
>> >> that
>> >> monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and
>> >> ignite resin. -- Mario
>> >
>> > "in water"?
>> >
>> > Let me see if I visualize this as you do:
>> >
>> > Sun -> water -> branch with resin
>> >
>> > So, the branch is under water? And it's supposed to ignite?
>>
>> Visualize a monkey that was in water before he came to the branch
>> (or to the pine).
>
> So, he's soaking wet???
He is wet. Maybe he even has long hair. Trying to dry himself, he
twists like a dog when exiting water. Or, at least he twists his head,
trying to dry hair. Water drops go all over the place.
>> The similar way the great fire after dry season in savanna
>> ignites.
>> After the first shower of wet season, the fire in savanna ignites. You
>> have
>> highly combustable dry grass (grass is too dry to be affected by only one
>> light shower), you have water drops (from the first shower), and the next
>> day after the shower you have still strong sun. Since you have billions
>> of dry grass, and billions of water drops, fire easily ignites. -- Mario
>
> The monkey is supposed to hold very still for whatever amount of time it
> takes to ignite the branch with the resin?
He is not trying to ignite fire. He is just there. It is
mediterranean type of environment. A lot of pyrophytes. They easily ignite
without any outside help. What ignites in pyrophytes is resin. Resin is
especially rich in pine knots. But nobody breaks off those knots. Because
this environment isn't very hospitable to anybody who can break off those
knots. And there are not a lot of water drops, because there are not animals
who go into sea, and deeper inland. But one day came aquatic monkey.
Which seeks refugee in sea, and which climbs trees and break off tree
branches. Hence causing more fires. -- Mario
spiznet
deowll
"spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:1148396661.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually the myth busters managed to start a fire with a rounded lump of ice
about the size of a person's head. A drop simply won't collect enough light
to do jack.
Lee Olsen
If monkeys can type all the works of Shakespeare, why would starting a
fire be a problem.....
http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/
Mario Petrinovich
> Actually the myth busters managed to start a fire with a rounded lump of
> ice about the size of a person's head. A drop simply won't collect enough
> light to do jack.
It would, be sure. It happens every time at the end of dry season in
savanna. You wouldn't imaginr how combustible mediterranean plants are. Once
somebody droped a cigaret while I was in army (I was in Titograd, today
called Podgorica, the capitol of Monte Negro). We went on. Accidently
somebody looked behind. We didn;t go 30 meter, an fire was already 2 meters
high. Thankfully we managed to overcome this.
In Podgorica it is incredibly hot. By the seaside it is pleasent,
because sea cools off the air. But inland, where stone reflects the sun, it
goes incredibly hot. -- Mario
spiznet
Jois
"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:e4um55$3je$1...@ss408.t-com.hr...
Africa?
Jois
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
>> monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If that
>> monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and ignite
>> resin. -- Mario
>>
> Hopefully pine forests and monkeys lived in the same place and time in
> Africa? Jois
Apes lived around Mediterranean. At the east side of Mediterranean
there was the first occurance of "impoverished" environment (AFAIK), I guess
something like pre-savanna, or early savanna, in Macedonia and Anatolia, in
the time and place of Ouranopithecus.
Ouranopithecus has diminished canines, and some other similarities
to us (as far as I could grasp). They don't know if it was bipedal.
Immidiately afterwards we have Sahelanthropus. European apes gone, apes
gone. Increased burnig by few fold (according to research of eastward ocean
bottom). And spreading of savanna environment.
Also we have two branches of African Apiths. Southern and northern.
And we do have two places with mediterranean type of pyrophytes, north at
Mediterranean, and south at South Africa. -- Mario
pete
> Hence causing more fires.
More fires than what?
Are more fires believed to have occured
at some place at some time,
than can be explained without wet monkeys?
Assuming that wet monkeys in pine trees start fires,
what is this supposed to be an explanation for?
--
pete
spiznet
more fires than there used to be, causing us to leave the aquatic aper
stage and fully invest in the savannah ape stage of monkeydom.
Soon, aper were becoming pyromaniacs, its just lucky these trees are so
"pyrophytic"!!! Simbosis is boss!!
Arrgh, noone will put me out, arrr....
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Hence causing more fires.
>
> More fires than what?
>
> Are more fires believed to have occured
> at some place at some time,
> than can be explained without wet monkeys?
>
> Assuming that wet monkeys in pine trees start fires,
> what is this supposed to be an explanation for?
Yes. We have evidence of more burning at the time. They researched
ocean bottom layers. Westward of Africa they noticed more ash at the bottom.
Or something like this. Try to find some info. It is in tune with emerging
of savanna. In fact, recently they noticed that savanna is product of
increased burning (it was not increased by few % or by few tens %, but by
few fold). They only don't know what caused that burning. These are
paleoecologists or something. They don't understand our history. I tried to
explain them that we could very easily be the cause of that, but they didn't
believe. They think that the cause is lightning, because of a change to
monsum climate. But increased burning definitely has something with it.
Anyway, try to find about recent research on this.
Anyway (mark II) this burning nicely coincidents with the emergence
of bipedals. And, if you take a look at us, we really eat burning meat. And,
as I was always saying, there is no way that we ever ate fresh meat,
otherwise we would still be eating it.
And, if you are to acquire that skill (eating burned meat), the best
place for it is in environment rich with pyrophytes. And this is in tune
with AAT (whether someone likes it or not). -- Mario
Lee Olsen
Mario Petrinovich wrote:
> deowll:
> > Actually the myth busters managed to start a fire with a rounded lump of
> > ice about the size of a person's head. A drop simply won't collect enough
> > light to do jack.
>
> It would, be sure.
Water drop testing.
Could a monkey or some other animal (Pleistocene Homo for instance)
start a fire by chance simply having sunlight focus through a drop of
water suspended on a hair in the proximity of pitch or some other dry
material?
Glass bottles laying in dry grass have been known to start fires. The
bottom of a coke can polished to a shine with tooth paste can focus
sunlight enough to get a fire started with dry tinder. I've seen
numerous survival-type people start fires with various combinations of
sticks; however, I have yet to see this type of fire started without
first blowing on the hot coal after igniting the tinder material. This
means a combination of wind, water drop held at the correct distance
long enough, along with the right tinder in order for the process to
succeed.
To test the water drop hypothesis, pine pitch has been suggested for
tinder. I happened to have some pine pitch that I gathered for the
purpose of testing its qualities as mastic for attaching arrowheads to
a shaft (it works great).
Materials and methods.
A few of the tools used in this experiment.
http://tinyurl.com/kyx5s
The focal length of the magnifying glass was approximately 7 inches. As
soon as the light was pinpointed on the paper, it burst into smoke
within a few seconds and coals rapidly burnt a hole in the paper.
http://tinyurl.com/hjp8h
Paper with hole burned in it ignited by the 80mm diameter magnifying
glass. Also in the photo is one of the lumps of pine pitch.
Surprisingly, the same method would not light the pitch. It simply
smoked and blistered the pitch as it evaporated, reminding me of the
Wicked Witch of the West in Oz after Dorothy threw a bucket of water on
her.
http://tinyurl.com/ksbsv
No matter how long the glass was applied to the pitch, I could not get
a coal or fire going. I tried several different lumps of pitch just to
make sure the first one wasn't defective in some way.
http://tinyurl.com/g3hd5
A match finally did the trick and reduced the lump of pitch into a
small cinder pile.
Next I tried focusing sunlight through a drop of water suspended on
various items with little success. Gravity seemed to mess up almost
every attempt at some point, mostly wetting the paper rather than
burning it. Using a hair I finally did manage to hold a drop in
place long enough to concentrate sunlight on a piece of paper, but at a
very close distance, something around two or three millimeters focal
length. No smoke could be produced in this manner. Next I tried
focusing the spot of light on my arm. I could feel no warmth at all. If
the ignition point of pitch was higher than paper there was no point in
trying to light the pitch with heat so low I could not detect it on my
arm.
My conclusion is that a drop of water could never kindle a fire using
pitch or anything else, either deliberately or by chance.
It happens every time at the end of dry season in
> savanna. You wouldn't imaginr how combustible mediterranean plants are. Once
> somebody droped a cigaret while I was in army (I was in Titograd, today
> called Podgorica, the capitol of Monte Negro). We went on. Accidently
> somebody looked behind. We didn;t go 30 meter, an fire was already 2 meters
> high. Thankfully we managed to overcome this.
Was the cigarette lit by a match or a drop of water?
deowll
Cooking doesn't seem to have been an instant in after fire arrived and some
people still like meat raw or rare.
Reasons to eat cooked meat.
Easier to eat because cooking makes it tender.
Easier to digest.
Kills parasites which is blasted important. Even if we had been as
carnivorous as timber wolves this one would still apply.
People who eat uncooked meat still run into nasty health issues regularly.
deowll
"Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148770991....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Something about the size of an old time grade school magnifying glass or
larger works great. A really clear sphere of about anything that size or up
should at least be possible. For a real blast try a friznel lens the size
of a sheet of paper and yes I know I misspelled it.
Dar Habel
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Mario Petrinovich wrote:
> > deowll:
> > > Actually the myth busters managed to start a fire with a rounded lump of
> > > ice about the size of a person's head. A drop simply won't collect enough
> > > light to do jack.
> >
> > It would, be sure.
>
> Water drop testing.
> My conclusion is that a drop of water could never kindle a fire using
> pitch or anything else, either deliberately or by chance.
Lee,
Obviously, you have entirely too much free time on your hands.
Dar
Lee Olsen
Dar Habel wrote:
> Lee,
> Obviously, you have entirely too much free time on your hands.
> Dar
:-)
Michael Hearne
It is easier for me to imagine a hominid breaking rocks to make tools,
and suddenly finding a pair which produced sparks. I had a pair when I
was a kid, one gray flint and a hard red one that I can't identify
today. I burned holes in my trousers rubbing those rocks together.
If I had carried out my fascination near a pile of tender, I could have
been the inventor of the first man made forest fire. So, I think the
question is not when did the monkey discover fire, but when did he learn
to control it?
Did we eat meat before we had fire? I have tried several recipes that
contained raw meat, but I neither liked the taste, nor did those dishes
digest well. I would suggest that we were probably eating fish before
red meat, since it can be readily eaten raw without ill effects (at
least salt water fish).
Michael
Michael Hearne
His theory has to do with a lens effect from the water droplets and the
sun. I wonder if it was ever done with say, a quartz crystal or some
other naturally occurring mineral?
I have tried it with my glasses, but it did not work. Of course, my
glasses are concave lenses, while a magnifying glass is convex. A water
droplet, being spherical, might not have the same focal properties, but
I haven't studied it.
It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
Michael
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
Never-the-less, it happens every year, after first shower, in
savanna.
At Mediterranean it is hot, very hot. Thankfully shore breeze cools
it just enough for us to feel extremly comfortable in that environment. But
inland it is still very hot, and sunbeams are very strong.
Try to find something about pyrophytes. As I wrote, those plants
work that way. They need fire. And they are producing fire. Even without any
additional help. If you take a look at where those mediterranean pyrophytes
grow, they grow with the right metereological condition, which includes dry
summer, in regions of subtropical highs, where there are not many clouds.
What produces fire for those plants is pitch (resin), highly
combustible. As I wrote, this isn't so much exposed, naturaly. But a monkey
can help to expose it to sun. This pitch isn't combustable just for us to
have fun. It is combustable to produce fire. This is the very reason of
existance of it. For a long time now, human is the main ignitor of fire. So,
maybe plants adjusted to this. Maybe they were more combustable in the past,
who knows.
So, you are saying that pyrophyts aren't producing fire, and you are
saying that the big fire after first shower in savanna isn't started by rain
drops. Hm, this is what you are saying. I saw one documentray which deals
especially with that big fire in savanna, and specialsts for this claim that
it is started that way.
But ok, if you think you shouldn't waste any more time on this, it
is alright with me. I will waste more time. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> as I was always saying, there is no way that we ever ate fresh meat,
>> otherwise we would still be eating it.
>> And, if you are to acquire that skill (eating burned meat), the
>> best place for it is in environment rich with pyrophytes. And this is in
>> tune with AAT (whether someone likes it or not). -- Mario
>
> Cooking doesn't seem to have been an instant in after fire arrived and
> some people still like meat raw or rare.
As I said, if we ever ate raw meat, there is no reason why we should
abandon eating it. And really, the very raw meat that we are eating is
probably the meat that we ate raw in the past. The meat we started to eat.
Shellfish. We ate it raw (per my version of AAT), and we are still eating it
raw. Although it tend to rotten, and become very fast unusable for eating.
> Reasons to eat cooked meat.
>
> Easier to eat because cooking makes it tender.
> Easier to digest.
> Kills parasites which is blasted important. Even if we had been as
> carnivorous as timber wolves this one would still apply.
But it wouldn't be enough of a reason to acquire eating cooked meat.
You know, a meat eater is very adjusted to all this. First, it does have
strong teeth. Then, it has strong stomach.
Burning meat recquire collecting wood, making fire (making you
highly visible). Even aborigines are cooking for about one hour. I mean, who
would wait for so long? Aren't you eating when you are hungry? Even if we
did cook sometime, or most of the time, for sure there would be occasions
when we would like to eat it straight away. We wouldn't abandon it,
altogether. If some of us would, for sure all and every of us wouldn't. And,
look at this, we really do eat raw food. We do eat shellfish, we do eat raw
fish. We even can eat blubber of aquatic mammals. So, we have no problem to
eat raw meat. We only have problem to eat precise meat we were suppose to
eat raw, terrestrial animals raw meat. Now, isn't it a strange? -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
>> monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If that
>> monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and ignite
>> resin. -- Mario
>
> It is easier for me to imagine a hominid breaking rocks to make tools,
> and suddenly finding a pair which produced sparks. I had a pair when I
> was a kid, one gray flint and a hard red one that I can't identify
> today. I burned holes in my trousers rubbing those rocks together.
>
> If I had carried out my fascination near a pile of tender, I could have
> been the inventor of the first man made forest fire. So, I think the
> question is not when did the monkey discover fire, but when did he learn
> to control it?
Frenkly, I don't think a monkey would play with rocks in a rain
forest. When chimps find some rock, they carry it a long way. Because, where
will you find another? Savanna looks no better place to find rocks. But,
you are right. We really are stone using animals (as well as fire using).
But we didin't play with rocks in rain forest. A sea rocky coast is another
thing. There there is almost nothing EXCEPT rocks.
> Did we eat meat before we had fire? I have tried several recipes that
> contained raw meat, but I neither liked the taste, nor did those dishes
> digest well. I would suggest that we were probably eating fish before
> red meat, since it can be readily eaten raw without ill effects (at
> least salt water fish). Michael
We are salting food. Other animals are eating salt, too. But they
are
licking salt. Try to salt your apple. You wouldn't do it. Because it ALTERS
the taste of food you like to eat so much. And you don't like salt apples.
Why would you salt your apples? To satisfy salt hunger? But, you do this
like you always did this. By licking salt. If you are thursty, you don't
soack apple into water, and than eat soacked apple. No, we started to salt
meat because we always ate salty meat. We are eating everything (not only
meat) salty, everything except the food we ate before we went to coast,
fruits.
Everything else is just a fairy tale. I am not quite sure what occam
rasor is, but definitelly what I am saying is more logical, more natural
progression, than invinting some fairy tales which are invented to
"explain" the way we are living. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
> His theory has to do with a lens effect from the water droplets and the
> sun. I wonder if it was ever done with say, a quartz crystal or some
> other naturally occurring mineral?
>
> I have tried it with my glasses, but it did not work. Of course, my
> glasses are concave lenses, while a magnifying glass is convex. A water
> droplet, being spherical, might not have the same focal properties, but
> I haven't studied it.
>
> It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
> accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
I just watch a documentary series about living in wilderness. People
are doing in wilderness exactly those things. They use pine knots as
thorches. For the very reason of resin in pine knots. They start fire by
making sparks, rubbing some metal on some stone. No problemo.
At mediterranean rocky coast you have all this. Combustable resin,
rocks, and that spark producing stones. And we do have strong hands. But not
the ape-like hands, which are actually hooks, and are of no use to play with
rocks. Our hands grip rocks excelently? Why? Well because we climbed sea
cliffs, and not trees. We were cliff hangers, and not a tree climbers. So,
really everything that is around us is at place. No need for somebody to
"invent it". Is this occam rasor?
Of course, our dear scientiests say that it is more natural that we
invented all this. No, it isn't at all. -- Mario
deowll
Have you ever heard of lightening?
deowll
Tape worms, round worms, flukes, etc. and you are clueless. Bad teeth kill
preditors because they can neither hunt nor feed. If they could cook they
would last at least a little longer.
Even the ones you list are not smart eating when eaten raw. Okay, maybe
blubber if you actually live like an old time Inuit.
Mario Petrinovich
> Have you ever heard of lightening?
Yes. But I hear of rain, too. Rain - fire extinguisher. Pyrophytes,
plants that produce fire, grow not where there are a lot of lightings, but
where there are no clouds.. -- Mario
spiznet
just the thing to cut open yer apple!!!
-Spiz
(I'm STIll Bernin....) ((yoW))
MClark
Clean sidewalks attract large flamingoes which deal only
in red cards (either suit) when Wednesdays fall on hard times.
This has led certain aged bovines to dance gracefully while
wearing only the barest essentials. I can hear it all now --
you've heard it before, aintchya? :-)
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> deowll:
>>> Have you ever heard of lightening?
>>
>> Yes. But I hear of rain, too. Rain - fire extinguisher.
>> Pyrophytes, plants that produce fire, grow not where there are a lot of
>> lightings, but where there are no clouds.. -- Mario
>
> Clean sidewalks attract large flamingoes which deal only
> in red cards (either suit) when Wednesdays fall on hard times.
> This has led certain aged bovines to dance gracefully while
> wearing only the barest essentials. I can hear it all now --
> you've heard it before, aintchya? :-)
>
> --
> "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
> 'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
> --Voltaire
I have that wireless keyboard, which sometimes doesn't work. So, it
didn't type "d" at the end of "heard", and I didn't notice it when I
rechecked what I wrote.
BTW, weren't you in my killfile? -- Mario
Lee Olsen
Not as hot as my magnifying glass focused on your arm. Would you like
to try it? People live outdoors just the same and paper or arms do not
smoke from just being in the sun, as they do the instant my magnifying
glass focuses on them.
> Try to find something about pyrophytes. As I wrote, those plants
> work that way. They need fire.
Yes, that is true, but it has nothing to do with: "the sun can magnify
through water drops."
And they are producing fire. Even without any
> additional help.
If that is the case, these trees were doing just fine long before
monkeys came along.
If you take a look at where those mediterranean pyrophytes
> grow, they grow with the right metereological condition, which includes dry
> summer, in regions of subtropical highs, where there are not many clouds.
> What produces fire for those plants is pitch (resin), highly
> combustible.
You said "pine" I'm sitting right here with pine pitch in front of me.
No water drop will ignite this pitch, my magnifier won't start it to
burn and neither will a drop of water.
As I wrote, this isn't so much exposed, naturaly. But a monkey
> can help to expose it to sun. This pitch isn't combustable just for us to
> have fun. It is combustable to produce fire.
Yes, and like the burning cigarette you mentioned, it was started with
something a lot hotter than a drop of water acting as a focusing agent.
This is the very reason of
> existance of it. For a long time now, human is the main ignitor of fire. So,
> maybe plants adjusted to this. Maybe they were more combustable in the past,
> who knows.
Pine trees have been around a lot longer than monkeys or man, so you
can bet neither had anything to do with the process at all.
> So, you are saying that pyrophyts aren't producing fire, and you are
> saying that the big fire after first shower in savanna isn't started by rain
> drops. Hm, this is what you are saying. I saw one documentray which deals
> especially with that big fire in savanna, and specialsts for this claim that
> it is started that way.
I can assure you there is no detectable amount of heat produced by
"sun can magnify through water drops"
Are you sure the fire wasn't caused by some sort of spontaneous
combustion process?
> But ok, if you think you shouldn't waste any more time on this, it
> is alright with me. I will waste more time. -- Mario
http://tinyurl.com/hmqf6
scroll down to fig 9. It says pitch started by "Subsequent fires
readily reignite in the exposed wood and flowing resin at the older
wound boundary."
It takes a fire to start the pitch burning, not the focus of a drop of
water or even a magnifying glass. Pitch burns hot once its burning,
but does not start initially that easy. I had to use a match to get it
going, just like the URL implies.
Lee
deowll
Man there are huge tracts of land that were burning every few years long
before humans ever walked the planet and plants adapted to live there.
pete
Just a couple of notes: getting pitch to burn, or any volatile
oil, is difficult because the liquid phase conducts heat away
making it hard to achieve and maintain combustion temperature.
That is why candles have wicks - only the gas burns, but it
must be heated by an adjacent solid surface to reach combustion
temperature. If you try your magnifying glass experiment with
pitch and something for it to wick on, you may have much better
luck - say a piece of string. In that case you may find the
pitch/wick combination ignites faster than either component
alone.
As to magnifying the sun through a sphere (water droplet), this
mostly doesn't work, because the spheric shape means a lot of
energy is dissipated in the material. Unless you have a very
transparent material, your transmission losses prevent sufficient
heat from being concentrated (and remember that transparency in the
visible is not necessarily the same as transparency in the
infrared).
The geometry of the situation is such that your loss rate is
independent of the diameter of the lens. Broken glass works
much better - it has a higher index of refraction, so a thinner
lens will concentrate light better than water, and commercial
glass is quite transparent.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> deowll:
>>> Have you ever heard of lightening?
>>
>> Yes. But I hear of rain, too. Rain - fire extinguisher.
>> Pyrophytes, plants that produce fire, grow not where there are a lot of
>> lightings, but where there are no clouds.. -- Mario
>
> Man there are huge tracts of land that were burning every few years long
> before humans ever walked the planet and plants adapted to live there.
Westward (the way winds blow) of Africa there is evidence of few
fold incerased burning right before of Sahelanhropus and later on. I am
prepared to see all the evidence. Show me the evidence for some other
region.
This is the most recent research. Maybe they will (by drilling the
ocean floor all over the world) construct a map of those things. When they
do that, we will have more knowlage about this. But so far, my theory is
COMPLETLY in tune with that data.
There has to be a reason for this. You say the reason is lightning
("long before humans ever walked the planets..."). We are talking about the
very time of emergence of bipedals, at wich time burning increased. I dont't
expect from you to see any connection in this. I expect that from smart
people. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
> Lee Olsen:
> ` Mario Petrinovich:
> ` > Lee Olsen:
> ` > > Mario Petrinovich:
> ` > >> deowll:
> ` > >> > Actually the myth busters managed to start a fire with a rounded
> ` > >> > lump of
> ` > >> > ice about the size of a person's head. A drop simply won't
> ` > >> > collect enough light to do jack.
> ` > >>
> ` > >> It would, be sure.
> ` > >
> ` > > Water drop testing.
> ` > > My conclusion is that a drop of water could never kindle a fire
> glass is quite transparent. -- Pete Vincent
Thanks, Pete.
Yes, I wanted to point to Lee that at Mediterranean we don't deal
with pitch in that form. I lacked knowlage about all this, but
never-the-less it is obvious that at Mediterranean pine pitch is in another
form. You have a lot of evaporative oils there. I don't know much about
them, i wanted to learn, but I couldn't find time. This region is known for
aromatic oils. How moch those oils are combustible, why precisely those (if
"precisely" those, I don't know) aromatic oils are so aromatic to us, and
things like that. Those things need thorough research in the precise context
I mentioned above. In the context of humans/bipedals, fire, and those
things. -- Mario
deowll
Try the American west. Check with the forestry service. You don't need
humans to have fires though we are pretty careless.
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
Of course I know everything about that. I am living in a country
full with mediterranean pyrophytes (Croatia). There are five regions in the
World where you have those plants. Mediterranean, South Africa, California,
Chile, South Australia.
They are on the west sides of continets, in a region of tropical
highs (30-40 deg, latitude), where cold ocean currents touch land, and
summers are dry and winters are wet. -- Mario
MClark
Gee, I dunno. Was I? Do you have one of those fancy wireless
killfiles? Maybe you could use the old home remedy for fixin'
'em: unscrew the nearest lightbulb and gently slip your tounge
into the socket. Let me know if that clears it up for yas...
Mario Petrinovich
>Mario Petrinovich:
>> BTW, weren't you in my killfile? -- Mario
>
> Gee, I dunno. Was I? Do you have one of those fancy wireless
> killfiles? Maybe you could use the old home remedy for fixin'
> 'em: unscrew the nearest lightbulb and gently slip your tounge
> into the socket. Let me know if that clears it up for yas...
Yes, I tried this, but it didn't help. I checked my killfile, and it
looks like you weren't there. Anyway, you are now. -- Mario
MClark
Darn it! I forgot to mention that the power must remain "on"
for this to work. Try it again --er, that is, if you can still see
this message. On a *lighter* note, how's the cliff-diving
proselytizing workin' for yas? Gettin' alot of converts?
Rich Travsky
> Rich Travsky:
> > Mario Petrinovich:
> >> Rich Travsky:
> >> > Mario Petrinovich:
> >> >> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
> >> >> monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If
> >> >> that
> >> >> monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and
> >> >> ignite resin. -- Mario
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Let me see if I visualize this as you do:
> >> >
> >> > Sun -> water -> branch with resin
> >> >
> >> > So, the branch is under water? And it's supposed to ignite?
> >>
> >> (or to the pine).
> >
> > So, he's soaking wet???
>
> He is wet. Maybe he even has long hair. Trying to dry himself, he
> twists like a dog when exiting water. Or, at least he twists his head,
> trying to dry hair. Water drops go all over the place.
So? Then what?
> >> The similar way the great fire after dry season in savanna
> >> ignites.
> >> After the first shower of wet season, the fire in savanna ignites. You
> >> have
> >> highly combustable dry grass (grass is too dry to be affected by only one
> >> light shower), you have water drops (from the first shower), and the next
> >> day after the shower you have still strong sun. Since you have billions
> >> of dry grass, and billions of water drops, fire easily ignites. -- Mario
> >
> > The monkey is supposed to hold very still for whatever amount of time it
> > takes to ignite the branch with the resin?
>
> He is not trying to ignite fire. He is just there. It is
> mediterranean type of environment. A lot of pyrophytes. They easily ignite
> without any outside help. What ignites in pyrophytes is resin. Resin is
> especially rich in pine knots. But nobody breaks off those knots. Because
> this environment isn't very hospitable to anybody who can break off those
> knots. And there are not a lot of water drops, because there are not animals
> who go into sea, and deeper inland. But one day came aquatic monkey.
> Which seeks refugee in sea, and which climbs trees and break off tree
> branches. Hence causing more fires. -- Mario
This makes even less sense, if that was possible.
The monkey goes into the sea, leaves, is wet, climbs a tree, breaks off branches
and this somehow causes fires?????
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Mario Petrinovich wrote:
> >
> >> Pine knots are full of resin. It wouldn't be hard tu imagine a
> >>monkey breaking off a branch of pine, exposing resin to the sun. If that
> >>monkey was in water, the sun can magnify through water drops, and ignite
> >>resin. -- Mario
> >
> >
> > "in water"?
> >
> > Let me see if I visualize this as you do:
> >
> > Sun -> water -> branch with resin
> >
> > So, the branch is under water? And it's supposed to ignite?
>
> His theory has to do with a lens effect from the water droplets and the
Yes, I know, but the process requires conditions not likely to occur, to wit,
getting the wet ape to hold still long enough and close to the material for
the fire to start. If he's saying the water in question is water that dripped
OFF the ape, this is no different than rain itself.
> sun. I wonder if it was ever done with say, a quartz crystal or some
> other naturally occurring mineral?
>
> I have tried it with my glasses, but it did not work. Of course, my
> glasses are concave lenses, while a magnifying glass is convex. A water
> droplet, being spherical, might not have the same focal properties, but
> I haven't studied it.
>
> It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
> accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
It would have to be a miracle.
Rich Travsky
With monkeys as the cause????
Rich Travsky
>
> deowll:
> >Mario Petrinovich:
> >> as I was always saying, there is no way that we ever ate fresh meat,
> >> otherwise we would still be eating it.
> >> And, if you are to acquire that skill (eating burned meat), the
> >> best place for it is in environment rich with pyrophytes. And this is in
> >> tune with AAT (whether someone likes it or not). -- Mario
> >
> > Cooking doesn't seem to have been an instant in after fire arrived and
> > some people still like meat raw or rare.
>
> As I said, if we ever ate raw meat, there is no reason why we should
> abandon eating it. And really, the very raw meat that we are eating is
For taste. There are other parts of animals - kidneys, livers, heart, brains,
and other parts... Cooked or raw. See below
> probably the meat that we ate raw in the past. The meat we started to eat.
> Shellfish. We ate it raw (per my version of AAT), and we are still eating it
> raw. Although it tend to rotten, and become very fast unusable for eating.
>
> > Reasons to eat cooked meat.
> >
> > Easier to eat because cooking makes it tender.
> > Easier to digest.
> > Kills parasites which is blasted important. Even if we had been as
> > carnivorous as timber wolves this one would still apply.
>
> But it wouldn't be enough of a reason to acquire eating cooked meat.
> You know, a meat eater is very adjusted to all this. First, it does have
> strong teeth. Then, it has strong stomach.
http://www.nativetech.org/poetry/buffalo.html
Native American Technology and Art
Essays on Native American Life and Relations With Non-Natives 1600-1850
by Longtrail Snowbird
Buffalo as a Food Source
Some Common and Not So Commonly Known Uses.
...
Raw morsels of the meat would have been snacked on while the butchering was
taking place. You as a participant might have been offered raw liver, kidney,
eyes, belly fat, testicles, parts of the stomach, marrow from leg bones,
gristle from snouts, hoofs of unborn calves and tissue from the sack they had
been in. Bile from the gall bladder was sprinkled on the meat and used as a
condiment as we might use mustard.
...
You might have bashed holes in the tops of skulls in order to scoop out the
brains.
...
Dehydration was the most popular means of long term storage.
...
Interesting site: "An internet resource for indigenous ethno-technology focusing
on the arts of Eastern Woodland Indian Peoples, providing historical &
contemporary background with instructional how-to's & references."
These are low tech methods for processing meat products.
> Burning meat recquire collecting wood, making fire (making you
> highly visible). Even aborigines are cooking for about one hour. I mean, who
> would wait for so long? Aren't you eating when you are hungry? Even if we
Who would wait? You just said aborigines would.
Rich Travsky
>
> Michael Hearne:
> > His theory has to do with a lens effect from the water droplets and the
> > sun. I wonder if it was ever done with say, a quartz crystal or some
> > other naturally occurring mineral?
> >
> > I have tried it with my glasses, but it did not work. Of course, my
> > glasses are concave lenses, while a magnifying glass is convex. A water
> > droplet, being spherical, might not have the same focal properties, but
> > I haven't studied it.
> >
> > It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
> > accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
>
> I just watch a documentary series about living in wilderness. People
> are doing in wilderness exactly those things. They use pine knots as
> thorches. For the very reason of resin in pine knots. They start fire by
> making sparks, rubbing some metal on some stone. No problemo.
> At mediterranean rocky coast you have all this. Combustable resin,
> rocks, and that spark producing stones. And we do have strong hands. But not
> the ape-like hands, which are actually hooks, and are of no use to play with
> rocks. Our hands grip rocks excelently? Why? Well because we climbed sea
Apes are good throwers - gripping is not a problem.
> cliffs, and not trees. We were cliff hangers, and not a tree climbers. So,
Hamadryas and other baboons live in cliff environments. Monkeys will make use
of cliffs
http://www.awionline.org/Lab_animals/biblio/jaaws1.htm
...
Monkeys are biologically adapted to withdraw in alarming situations and avoid
terrestrial predators by taking to the arboreal—vertical—dimension of their
environment (Chopra, Seth, & Seth, 1992; DeVore & Hall, 1965; Home Office,
1989; Lindburg, 1971; Roonwal & Mohnot, 1977). The presence of cliffs, trees,
or other high structures for refuge from predators affects the distribution of
monkeys more than the edibility of the vegetation does (Jay, 1965; Hamilton,
1982; Simonds, 1965)
...
Mario Petrinovich
> Michael Hearne:
>> His theory has to do with a lens effect from the water droplets and the
>
> Yes, I know, but the process requires conditions not likely to occur, to
> wit,
> getting the wet ape to hold still long enough and close to the material
> for
> the fire to start. If he's saying the water in question is water that
> dripped OFF the ape, this is no different than rain itself.
It is very different. A great fire in savanna starts after first
shower. Then conditions are right. Grass is very dry, and sun is still very
strong, and air is very hot.
Maybe similar things really happen in Mediterranean, as well? Why
not? Those pyrophytes are more combustable than grass. What I am saying is
that, when apes came there, they simply caused more of this. Only by being
present there. Soon, you'll find out that there is more burned places where
apes are. And apes will more like burned places, because it is a safer place
to be. There is no bush from which animal would amBUSH you. Soon, you'll
learn to like burned places, and you'll learn to go where fire was. When you
see fire, you'll go there. And there will be food, as well. Burned meat.
Excellent. Now, you will have the REASON to learn to use fire. For safety
and for food.
And, when you know how to use fire, only sky is the limit. Because,
no animal can live without its environment. And environment that suits you
is burned environment. And it is so easy to produce it.
>> It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
>> accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
>
> It would have to be a miracle.
Yes, accidental. This is what I am talking about. When you learn how
fire is good for you, you became fascinated by it. And we are, still
today. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
> Hamadryas and other baboons live in cliff environments. Monkeys will make
> use of cliffs
>
> http://www.awionline.org/Lab_animals/biblio/jaaws1.htm
> ...
> Monkeys are biologically adapted to withdraw in alarming situations and
> avoid
> their
> environment (Chopra, Seth, & Seth, 1992; DeVore & Hall, 1965; Home Office,
> 1989; Lindburg, 1971; Roonwal & Mohnot, 1977). The presence of cliffs,
> trees,
> or other high structures for refuge from predators affects the
> distribution of
> monkeys more than the edibility of the vegetation does (Jay, 1965;
> Hamilton, 1982; Simonds, 1965)
Thanks, Rich.
Indeed, I was writing about this before. Climbers are climbers. They
climb vertically. And, although we have a perception of monkeys as tree
species, monkeys are extremly capable of climbing cliffs, as well. Before I
was writing about hyraxes. Excellent climbers. We have two branches, a tree
hyraxes and cliff hyraxes.
Amongst monkeys we also do have geladas and hamadryas baboons, which
use cliffs. Geladas are know for very dexterious hands. And really, they
have hands suitable for that environment.
But do apes have such hands? Not at all. Their hands are like hooks.
Their life stile made this. They are not good on cliffs. Their hands aren't
dexterious. And ours ARE.
And really, it is very possible for a monkey to live on cliffs. But
this shouldn't be an ape of today. It could be something like
Pierolapithecus. An ape with short fingers. -- Mario
Rich Travsky
What does this have to do with your claim that wet chimps can start fires?
> >> It does seem rather complex for a monkey, so it would have to be
> >> accidental, and probably not a repeatable experiment.
> >
> > It would have to be a miracle.
>
> Yes, accidental. This is what I am talking about. When you learn how
> fire is good for you, you became fascinated by it. And we are, still
> today. -- Mario
Accidental? To say the least. So accidental, the chimp will not make the association
as to what caused it and would be frightened by it.
Rich Travsky
There is little difference in hand shape other than size. Their hands do NOT
have to be like ours.
http://www.africa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/kiroku/asm_normal/abstracts/pdf/21-4/173-203.pdf
IMPORTANT HABITAT FOR CHIMPANZEES IN MALI
African Study Monographs, 21(4): 173-203, December 2000
Chris S. DUVALL
Department of Environmental Studies, San Jose State University
...
Humans prefer relatively flat areas which are easy to cultivate, while
chimpanzees favor cliffs, hills and steep slopes (Kortland, 1983; Pavy, 1993).
...
Please please PLEASE do a little research first...
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
Aquatic animals don't fear fire that much. Water (aqua) isn't
flamable. It is fire extinguisher. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
Yes, cliffs aren't easy to cultivate. Chimps would live along with
humans on flat areas. But then again, maybe cliffs are better, : ). -- Mario
Rich Travsky
Land animals don't fear fire either until they have an experience with it. The
same applies to aquatic animals.
Rich Travsky
The Incans and Nepalese were able to do some.
> humans on flat areas. But then again, maybe cliffs are better, : ). -- Mario
Better for what?
Mario Petrinovich
> Mario Petrinovich:
>> Rich Travsky:
>> > IMPORTANT HABITAT FOR CHIMPANZEES IN MALI
>> > African Study Monographs, 21(4): 173-203, December 2000
>> > Chris S. DUVALL
>> > Department of Environmental Studies, San Jose State University
>> > ...
>> > Humans prefer relatively flat areas which are easy to cultivate, while
>> > chimpanzees favor cliffs, hills and steep slopes (Kortland, 1983; Pavy,
>> > 1993).
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Please please PLEASE do a little research first...
>>
>> Yes, cliffs aren't easy to cultivate. Chimps would live along
>> with
>
> The Incans and Nepalese were able to do some.
>
>> humans on flat areas. But then again, maybe cliffs are better, : ).
>
For LIVING on (staying ALIVE). -- Mario
Rich Travsky
Evidently not since few humans live on cliffs.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44AB1C2B...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Evidently not since few humans live on cliffs.
Even fewer live in savannas. ;)
Rich Travsky
No? ;)
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Never seen a map with population densities?
In your atlas, the savannas are densely populated, Travsky? ;)
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44C3CE63...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:44AB1C2B...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > >
> > > > Evidently not since few humans live on cliffs.
> > >
> > > Even fewer live in savannas. ;)
> >
> > No? ;)
>
> Never seen a map with population densities?
Yes, have you?
> In your atlas, the savannas are densely populated, Travsky? ;)
In your atlas, the cliffs are densely populated? :-D
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > news:44C3CE63...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:44AB1C2B...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > > > > Evidently not since few humans live on cliffs.
> > > > Even fewer live in savannas. ;)
> > > No? ;)
> > Never seen a map with population densities?
> Yes, have you?
Then, my boy, what is the population density in savannas... :-)
> > In your atlas, the savannas are densely populated, Travsky? ;)
> In your atlas, the cliffs are densely populated? :-D
Cliffs?? What are you talking about??
My boy, FYI (do you see the word "cliffs"??):
AAT (shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps & other animals.
Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain size,
diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles,
tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell,
handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing,
fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated
fatty acids etc.
Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along
coasts & rivers, in savannas & elsewhere : in spite of sea level
fluctuations (difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts : Mojokerto,
Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing
to reach Flores http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44DD6B74...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:44C3CE63...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:44AB1C2B...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > > > > > Evidently not since few humans live on cliffs.
>
> > > > > Even fewer live in savannas. ;)
>
> > > > No? ;)
>
> > > Never seen a map with population densities?
>
> > Yes, have you?
>
> Then, my boy, what is the population density in savannas... :-)
Higher than humans living on cliffs! :) :) :)
> > > In your atlas, the savannas are densely populated, Travsky? ;)
>
> > In your atlas, the cliffs are densely populated? :-D
>
> Cliffs?? What are you talking about??
Ask Mario. It's his crazy idea.