Miscellaneous desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 8

Lebanon TV show

Sorry for my bad English...

I found a YouTube video of a Lebanese TV... what they speaking about?

Here the link: h t t p s://you tu. be/dTerBbp1Ank (delete spaces) --Gatto bianco (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Lebanese talk show, The host is introducing the two kids as the youngest lovers couple on earth. The two are apparently engaged (they have the rings to show it). He asks them where they met (nursery school) and whether their parents know about this (yes, the girl's mom used to be his teacher, now she's his mother-in-law). It's all good-natured and in good fun. --Xuxl (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civet cat vs human coffee

I don't understand this.

Obviously, once the coffee beans have been processed by the Civet cat it's supposed to taste a lot better. But why doesn't the same rule apply to humans? If I ate a whole bunch of coffee beans would it not be possible to then extract these from my feces and also get a decent brew afterwards? I'm confused. Any pointers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.5.225 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(For linkage's sake: Kopi Luwak). Someone beat you to it, see for example Sprudge's "We Drank Human Poop Coffee" or "Human Poop Coffee, ‘Kopi Luwak Style,’ For Sale On Craigslist". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly inspired by that one Austin Powers movie scene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you would need to eat fresh coffee cherries (the fruit as picked from the bush), and not the dried coffee beans usually used to make coffee. It is unlikely that dried beans would be effected by digestive enzymes in the way that fresh ones would. You will also need to watch your health, as swallowing large numbers of hard seeds may cause digestive problems. Wymspen (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why the OP cannot simply eat coffee beans, then brew his defecate? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coffee beans we are used to have usually been dried, and may even have been roasted. That makes them harder, and would mean that digestive enzymes will react differently to the way they do when the civet eats the fresh berries. Wymspen (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The beans that have been through the Civet cat end up making weaker tasting coffee. Although I think it tastes inferior, some people may like it, and because it needs more processing, it costs more to make. Because it is special, people pay more for it. Then others think it is better because it costs more. These animals originally ate the beans in the wild. So that would be why they are farmed to do the job. Other animals could probably work too, with varying results. Hopefully they are not poisoned by too much caffeine. But because of the lack of reputation, no one would buy the beans that have been through a dog or human. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to humans to make Coprophagia fashionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civet cats don't eat coffee beans, they eat coffee berries (i.e. unroasted). Small, but important, difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why the OP can't just try this and report his results. Do they not know what Civets or Coffee Beans are in Ohio? Orf, Orf! μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be harder to get the coffee berries there though, but raw beans should be available! Roasting afterwards is a good idea! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up heavy things from the sea bed

So if I go to the beach with my snorkel mask, and I find a shipwreck full of nice shiny gold bars weighing 12.4kg each, would I be able to pick them up? Seems like I'd struggle to lift any significant weight, underwater with nothing to brace myself against. For the sake of argument, lets say they are exactly 2 metres underwater and I don't have to dig them out of any sand. 79.42.123.129 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the actual weight but the weight relative to water that matters. See buoyancy. Gold has a density of 19.30 g/cm³ and water has a density of about 1 gm/cm³, so it would seem to weigh about 18.3 g/cm³ in water. Inflating a bag of air tied around the object is one way to lift such things. See lift bag. However, this does not help in lifting it out of the water. But, if you could get it close enough to shore, then you could get a foothold to lift it manually. But the lift bag would be subject to being moved along by waves and currents, so attaching a cable to it to pull from shore might help.

BTW, a shipwreck only 2 meters underwater would be visible from the surface, so you would need some explanation as to why nobody else saw it before you. One possible answer would be if a recent storm moved it and/or unburied it. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, as Stu says, gold is 19.3 times as dense as water, so the weight difference due to buoyancy is almost negligible: only about 640 grams in this case, so say the bar is effectively 11.8 kg. Second, since that's a weight that most people can lift, the only issue with lifting the bar off the seabed is whether you can practically exert that much force against the bar: that's going to depend on what sort of material you can stand on, which we don't know. Maybe you can stand on the wreck itself. But third, you also have to get yourself off the seabed and back to the surface. With 11.8 kg of extra weight, you won't float: you'll need help to be pulled to the surface, and then you'll need something to keep you afloat. Maybe you could attach a tether to a boat or other flotation device and get back up that way. Otherwise, fastening something to the gold bar and using it from outside the water to lift the bar seems best. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite easy to lift things from a shallow seabed. If piped air from the surface is available (i.e. the depth isn't such that the pressure becomes too much to pump against) then a lifting bag will do it - for weights up to anything limited by the attachment points.

It's harder to lift things at the surface, where they need to be transferred to a ship-mounted crane. Many bits of salvage have been dropped, and sometimes lost, at this point. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster did say they were snorkeling, so no piped air. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It has been done that way in the Caribbean, which is good, shallow snorkelling. It's easier to get lifting air than safe breathable air. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant it was something they'd have to arrange for. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's a much-maligned superhero when you really need him? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could manage to lift it by hand, you could then walk it ashore. However, lack of air could become a problem, unless your snorkel tube is long enough to use at that depth. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A longer snorkel won't help. As our snorkel article says, "A longer tube [than 40 cm] would not allow breathing when snorkelling deeper, since it would place the lungs in deeper water where the surrounding water pressure is higher. The lungs would then be unable to inflate when the snorkeler inhales, because the muscles that expand the lungs are not strong enough to operate against the higher pressure." Snorkeling is only possible when the lungs are within a few inches of the surface. CodeTalker (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they said the object was 2 meters down. Once lifted, and they are standing upright, that should put their mouth fairly close to the surface, depending on their height. So, it would only need to be a bit longer than usual, not several meters long. There might also be waves to deal with, so breathing may only be possible in the troughs. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's another helpful factor to underwater lifting: On land, you are lifting not only the object but also your own weight, while underwater, your own weight is essentially cancelled by the buoyant force of the water displaced. This doesn't make much difference in the weight you feel at the arms, because they would only be lifting the object plus their own weight, in either case, which isn't that much. In your legs, on the other hand, you would notice a dramatic difference. On the downside, resistance from moving through water quickly is substantial, but moving slowly creates little fluid resistance, so slow and steady would be the way to carry the objects underwater, walking on the bottom. StuRat (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please message me privately with the coordinates of these gold bars. Merely so I can assist with your research. Thank you. Hayttom (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]