Elephantine configuration conundrum
READERS have been commenting on that unusual unit of pressure, the elephant standing on a Mini Cooper (ESOAMC). Doug Cross wrote that if, as UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph had suggested, the pressure at the bottom of the Mariana trench in the Pacific Ocean is 8000 ESOAMC, 鈥渢here鈥檚 only room for a single elephant to stand on the roof of a Mini, or indeed, on the back of another elephant. So they must all be in a single stack, 8000 elephants high鈥�. This would mean a stack 28 kilometres high (28 April).
It would be foolish to expect this to go unchallenged by Feedback readers, and it didn鈥檛. Mike Simpson reminds us that 鈥渢he gravitational force acting between two objects reduces as the distance between them increases鈥�. He therefore assumes that the elephant on top of the stack would weigh less than the elephant on the bottom. So do these units require conversion to allow for the effect of the laws of gravity on the elephantine configuration? They probably do. But it has been a long day, and Feedback is not in the frame of mind to calculate how many actual elephants would achieve the same pressure as 8000 of the Telegraph鈥榮 gravity-naive elephants. Nor, indeed, whether any of the topmost elephants are likely to achieve orbit, rendering the conversion-to-reality of the units unachievable.
Advertisement
Perhaps a more refreshed and skilled reader can help? Maybe not before breakfast, if you wish also to take into account the plight of the unfortunate elephants at the bottom of the stack.
Staying at a resort in Niagara-on-the-Lake in Canada, John Preece noticed a sign on the door to the patio saying 鈥淭his door does not open鈥�. 鈥淚s it still a door?鈥� he wonders
MEANWHILE, elephants continue to pop up elsewhere as choice units of measurement. Tom Smith tells us that visitors to the Burj Khalifa in Dubai can read a notice saying that the building, claimed to be the world鈥檚 tallest, weighs 鈥渕ore than 100,000 elephants鈥�.
Tim says that his family wondered if this was entirely appropriate, given that they failed to see any elephants nearby. There were plenty of camels, though, and they wondered what the equivalent of 100,000 elephants would be in camels. 鈥淧erhaps 300,000,鈥� Tom suggests, 鈥渨hich might be even more impressive鈥�.
They felt, however, that as the Burj Khalifa is a modern building, a more appropriate unit might be Ferraris, Maseratis or Lamborghinis. There were many more of each of these cars (鈥渃ruising the main beach road at 2-3 miles per hour, nose to tail, every evening until after midnight鈥�) than there were camels.
WE ASKED on 3 March for help explaining why San Benedetto mineral water has 0 milligrams of sodium per 250 millilitre, but 5.8 mg of sodium per litre.
鈥淚t is easily explained,鈥� says Peter O鈥橞yrne. 鈥淪odium ions are denser than water, so they sink to the bottom of the bottle. The top 250 ml of water in your 1 litre bottle therefore contains no sodium ions, but when you test the whole bottle, you get an answer of 5.8 mg per litre.
鈥淥K? Do I get a prize?鈥澛犅犅犅犅犅犅犅�
As mad explanations go, this is top-notch, Peter, so thanks. Unfortunately our prize fund has sunk to the bottom of our pockets.
ON EBAY, Isabel Rodrigues found of 鈥淪tunning Moroccan Echinoids 鈥� fossil sea urchins鈥� brand-new, unused, unopened and undamaged鈥�.
Thinking a brand-new fossil 鈥� probably from the Cretaceous 鈥� for 拢3.50 was a good deal, Isabel put in a bid for it.
READER Tony Nelson-Smith asks whether we noticed, in the Review section of UK paper The Observer on 29 April, 鈥渃ochineal implants鈥� listed among technological advances. Tony wonders if these are for people who yearn to have bright red ears.
We didn鈥檛 notice, but The Observer did: in its 6 May 鈥渇or the record鈥� feature it , saying, 鈥淭hat should, of course, have been cochlear implants.鈥�
RETURNING to the theme of units, Tom Middlebrook expresses dissatisfaction over a Vodafone advert on trolleys at Tullamarine airport in Melbourne, Australia. They have a picture of a shark on them, along with the statement 鈥淭he great white shark weighs approx. 115 suitcases鈥�.
鈥淎re they full?鈥� Tom demands to know. 鈥淗alf-full? Empty? Adult sharks? Average sharks?鈥�
To this we would add: 鈥淎re they hungry sharks or full-up sharks?鈥� Vodafone needs to do some more work on this.
FINALLY, reader Liz Krause thinks it could be tempting to upstage the neighbours鈥� garden gnome collection by taking up (German) Amazon鈥檚 in attack posture.
True, the price of a whopping 鈧�24,771 is somewhat prohibitive, but the worldwide shipping cost of a mere 鈧�5.90 that Liz tells us she was quoted makes the offer almost seem reasonable.