OneGuyFromBarlick

Here’s a question for you Tize Why does a sponge left upright to dry, dry quickly, but a sponge left flat, take much longer to dry?

Cathy wrote: ↑30 May 2022, 09:58 Why does a sponge left upright to dry, dry quickly, but a sponge left flat, take much longer to dry?

Under the heading of my best guess. ..
Water molecules are always bouncing about from the surface if there is no air movement to carry them away to cause drying then they will drop back to the surface and it will remain wet. Lying a sponge flat only allows the bottom surface to lose its water molecules. Standing the sponge on edge allows both surfaces to lose their molecules and dry.
That's what I think but what do I know about these things. In another post Stanley mentioned string theory etc etc. About 7 years ago it was one of those 'must read books' recommended by Tizer I think, Julian Barbour 'End of Time' , after two readings I still didn't understand it which just about sums up my limited knowledge on these things.

Plaques, I guess what you suggest would contribute to the difference but I think the main factor would be faster drainage from the vertical sponge due to the greater head of water compared with the flat sponge.

(I'm not guilty of the Julian Barbour 'End of Time' issue! Could it have been Richard Broughton? )

Checked up on Julian Barbour it was Bruff that spoke about him.

Drainage of a sponge... I would have thought that the capillary action within the sponge would have stopped any potential drainage even when it was stood on end. Must ask Cath to do some controlled experiments or is it too much like watching paint dry?

I like your first answer Ken..... Does Cathy want further experiments?

The sponges are both surrounded by open air, and can freely drain from the underneath side. One has 5 1/2 inches in length to drain and the other has 1/4 of an inch to drain. It’s just very strange to me, and thought there would be a simple explanation.

Greater exposed surface area when stood up, rather than lying flat is my suggestion

Tizer ??
Where does gravity come into it?

First thing to note is that the holes in the sponge are interconnecting - if they didn't connect you wouldn't be able to get water into it. Second, imagine you've dunked the sponge in water, squeezed it to expel air then allowed it to expand again and take up the water. When you lift it out excess water will immediately drain out. If you stand the sponge on its edge the free water will drain faster than if its horizontal - that's where gravity comes into play. It's like draining water out of a hose after you've watered the garden - hold the hose up vertically and the water comes out faster than if you leave the hose lying down horizontally.

After excess water has drained from a sponge the remaining water is held in by surface tension, an attractive force between the sponge molecules and water molecules. This water won't drain out under gravity and needs to evaporate slowly from the sponge surface. If you leave the sponge lying on, say, a plastic chopping board the water can only evaporate from one side but if you prop it up on edge the water can evaporate from both sides and therefore dry out twice as fast. That's my reasoning but I'm not a physicist. [Note: no sponges were harmed in this discussion!]

[Note: no sponges were harmed in this discussion!]

Not unless your sponge is a loofah,

Thank you . Clever little things, these sponges .

Only on Oneguy......

plaques wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 08:31 [Note: no sponges were harmed in this discussion!]
Not unless your sponge is a loofah,

Haha! I assume Cathy was referring to a synthetic sponge. You can grow your own loofah plants... LINK

At last, the giant fungus Prototaxites is getting the attention it deserves!...
`Earliest evidence of wildfire found in Wales' LINK

A phallic structure that weighs up to ten tons.... Why Haven't I heard about this before?

Found this in The Guardian today. New Evolution Theory

There's plenty to have ago at there. I particularly liked the 'fish out of water' which very quickly adapted - not in the millions of years previously assumed. There is already some opposition to Darwen's ideas. This will encourage more.

I think that just because we with our puny brains don't understand something doesn't mean it must then be from God. Let's just call it a non religious mystery, and keep looking.

That's a good article and a persuasive argument. I think my brain works on a very strict ordering of what subjects I want to think about on the grounds that some subjects are to complicated or inaccessible. Geology and evolution are two of many! There are so many things I don't fully understand but have I got time to enquire into them all?
I always remember the Chief Engineer at one of the major railway companies, I think it was Churchward at GWR, who said in a speech made on his retirement.... "It's a pity I am having to stop. I think I am at last beginning to understand the Simple Slide Valve!"
I know what he meant, there is a whole world of engineering embodied in that one simple mechanism. As soon as I realised that I knew it was useless to try to fully understand it......

Peter has been warning us about THIS for months and it looks as though it's finally going to happen. This is academic vandalism. No need for it at all and a direct consequence of Brexit. Johnson tries to persuade us that financing Moderna will automatically make us leaders in research. This is fantasy land.
Just one more example of what is coming down the line for the UK. A long lingering decline....

Tripps wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 18:42 Found this in The Guardian today. New Evolution Theory
There's plenty to have ago at there. I particularly liked the 'fish out of water' which very quickly adapted - not in the millions of years previously assumed. There is already some opposition to Darwen's ideas. This will encourage more.
I think that just because we with our puny brains don't understand something doesn't mean it must then be from God. Let's just call it a non religious mystery, and keep looking.

The big beasts of science, like those in other areas of life are always having a go at each other, trying to defend their own positions and boost their own reputations. Meanwhile the working biologists are much more open minded and accept many things that don't agree with the old standard evolution story. Talk to them and you'll find plenty of interesting examples of observations that don't fit the simplistic views of evolution. The article mentions evolution of eyes and - shock horror - perhaps our eyes didn't evolve through a simple single line of evolution. That's been known for ages. After the big extinction when the asteroid hit Earth 65 million years ago and wiped out 95% of species the surviving species went through a reboot. The small mammals that survived did so by becoming nocturnal creatures living underground. They lost their eyes but when the mammals returned to living above ground eyes evolved again. Not all eyes are the same. Insect eyes are obviously different from mammalian eyes; and the ancient trilobites had eye lenses which were made up of individual crystals of calcite mineral.

Most of what we hear about the Horizon Europe science crisis is about it's bad effect on British science but the reality is that European science is hit too. Many of the projects have British scientists in their team and the loss of their experience and data will compromise the viability of the projects. So it's a loss all round.

The ability to examine DNA where possible is a game changer in the evolution stakes. Animals and what were thought to be specific species are now being reclassified to their DNA structure. A recent discussion can be seen here. Link

I thought about you Peter when I saw THIS there is re-classification happening with minerals as well as other areas.

Yes, I've seen various reports about it and it's a shame that they give the wrong impression. The new classification will be useful for some scientists who are studying Earth processes and I'm glad Prof Hazen and his colleagues have done the work to help them: but most geologists and mineralogists will continue to use the current classification which is based on the physical and chemical properties of the minerals and already takes into account how minerals are formed and how one is changed into another. Science is getting too complicated!

"Science is getting too complicated!"
It always was for small intellects like mine Peter. I remember Bertie Boake, our chemistry master, tearing his hair out because of my inability to grasp the finer points of the Periodic Table. Funny thing is I was OK with Physics......

It was the opposite for me, I loved chemistry but couldn't grasp some of the physics. Also maths was problematic - I found arithmetic easy and and still enjoy geometry but it all became smoke and mirrors when I had to learn algebra. My brain just doesn't work that way (and it was not helped by having a totally unsympathetic maths teacher!).