Are you saying that your experience is backwards of mine? Namely the soft feces floats and hard sinks? If so, perhaps we need a survey. Here is the first clearly stated data point: - mine sinks if it is soft and I am not constipated but floats when I am. What is it that "American nutritionists tell us to look for" if "wondering whether there's enough fiber in our diet." Are yous saying the say "look and see if your feces float of not? I think they just say: “If your constipated, eat more fiber.” In answer to your first question: Yes due to Corilois force, if there is zero angular momentum in the water initially (nearly impossible to achieve) the water will swirl out the other way round.
My understanding suggests this is wrong - Coriollis effects only come into play on scales of hundreds of kilometers, not the 'less than a meter' of a toilet bowl or bath tub. And to answer your question, yes, Soft turds can float, hard turds can sink - I've had experience with all four cases. Gimme a few days, and I'm fairly sure I could replicate all four cases (with careful manipulation of my diet) I'd even offer to take photos and post them, but... I'm not sure how well that would go down.
Yes for it to be observable on the small scale of a sink etc. is essentially impossible but it is there and acting. As angular momentum is conserved, the last little bit of water to exit, which will be with reduced radial extent, is rotating at higher angular rate but any initial angular momentum will overwhelm the tiny momentum produced by Coriollis torque. That is why in my initial comments I said it was almost impossible to get the water's initial angular momentum so low that Coriollis effect could be observed on this small scale. Thanks for your data point. My soft turds always sink but that was not your case. I love to think about mysteries I observe in every day life. For example sand sinks (is denser than water) yet collect in the center of the pan of swirling water instead of being thrown to the outer edge by centrifugal force - why? But why peas in an opaque pod are green is an equally bad problem. It takes energy to make than needless chlorophyll and it is not a very good store of energy for the growing plant. Why has evolution not make more energy efficient peas? Why do the rays of sunlight coming thru a small hole in the clouds in the late afternoon look like a fan of rays when all the ray are essentially parallel? Artist will often paint that fan shape of rays in their paintings. On this one, I know why, but am not telling.* I have a theory about the sand in swirling water pan, but no way to test it. No progress yet on why peas are green, but sometimes think about it when going to sleep. If anyone has some others, tell them. I am about half done on solving these. ----------------- * Here is a hint: depth perception fails at less than a little more than 100 meters.
I'm aware of the principles of action, so to speak, of the coriolis force. Fibre isn't the only factor affecting density and firmness. Fat content and hydration also affect it. My recollection is that this is due to factors such as density, drag, and the reynolds number. Essentially, the sand 'settles' there because the water doesn't have the velocity to resuspend it, and the sand doesn't have the inertia to move outwards. This is because you're relying on the water to impart momentum to the sand, as opposed to, for example, a centrifuge. Isn't it just the skin that's green? Perhaps being green confers some other survival trait - like camoflage. Or perhaps it confers no survival what so ever, and it's simply a trait that hasn't been eliminated (yet) because it isn't detrimental. Same reason we get anticrepuscular rays, and meteor showers appear to radiate from a point. We percieve the sky as being a solid surface that is dome shaped (but not neccessarily hemispherical) so anything (or rather any two things) that travel on paralell courses through it appear to be following great circles projected onto it, which results in all sorts of interestign phenomena. And yeah, depth perception is part of it. What's your theory?
No, all the interior is a paler green. I think that explains much of the moon illusion along with "size constancy" of psychology but not the "sunlight fan" illusion as you do not even see the sky - only clouds with different shapes on their bottom sides and a hole in them, thru which you may even have higher clouds blocking the sky from your view, even thru the hole. "Size constancy" is the unconscious automatic correction of the retinal image size to a more true perceived size for the distance objects. For example you see / perceive / a distant car is same size as a near one and not a tiny toy car. You have also learned that "the dome of the sky" is far from a hemisphere. -The part at the zenith is much closer to you than part at the horizon. I believe this learned belief is in large part due to seeing birds (an in the modern age airplanes) move at slow angular rate when their image is near the horizon compared to much higher angular rate when they are approximately over head and the implicit assumptions that their true speed is a constant. From this were correctly infer that the birds near the horizon are farther away and automatically / unconsciously apply "size constance" to them, to correctly give them a perceived size larger than their tiny retinal image would suggest with. Unlike flying birds, the moon's distance from us is not changing as it moves from near horizon (where we have inferred the dome of the sky is more distant) to over head and we again automatically apply the size constance correction, falsely this time, to make moon seem larger at the horizon. Just as we correctly make the near horizon birds larger in perception (increase their retinal image size to perceive their true size). The moon's retinal image is always the same size but when at the horizon we automatically increase its perceived size to get what we think (falsely) is a larger moon. It is built on things you mention except for the reynolds number, plus sand particles are both "spinning" due to water flow by them and also roll due to contact with pan bottom at the edge of the pan, but not at the center of pan where water is moving more slowly over them. PS my favorite example of "size constance" is a father, twice as tall as his son and twice as far from you. Father and son both make the same size retinal image, but you correctly perceive the father is twice as tall - thanks to the automatic "size constance" computations in the brain. This would also happen with stacks of bricks or even just two vertical sticks etc. as it your perception of the twice more distant, not your knowledge of the object that makes the correction for perceived size. In the moon illusion you can not correctly perceive the distance to moon but infer it as it slide on the dome of the sky.
Crepuscular rays (what you are describing) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anticrepuscular rays (what I was talking about - converge on the antisolar point) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anticrepuscular rays viewed from an aircraft: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Notice how aside from being fainter, they look virtually identical to crepuscular rays? They say a picture paints a thousand words, and this one seems to describe my point better than I can. Experiments might include: Liquids of different viscosity (eg glycerine versus water, or saline solutions of different salinity). Similar grades of sand of differing density (eg black sand versus white sand versus other kinds). Different grades of sand (of comparable density). Comparison of particle size versus effect (at what point does it cease to settle, at what point does it begin to move outwards). The over all effect on a mixture (if you use say gravel, sand, silt, and clay, do they seperate according to grain size?) here you may even be able to measure the degree of seperation. The effects of different swirling rates (Do you have an old record player you can get your hands on?)
They tell us that if our stool floats, we're probably eating enough fiber. Something for parents to watch for in young children. Yes. The Coriolis Force is too weak to have a detectable effect at such a small scale. Look at the jets under the rim of your toilet bowl (by all means use a mirror) and you'll see that the water does not come streaming out straight down. That would not provide the swirling action needed to cleanse the porcelain. They are aimed sideways so the water comes out in a fast, slowly descending spiral. Apparently the direction of the aim varies from country to country. In equatorial countries, hucksters claim to "demonstrate" the Coriolis Force to tourists. They take a pail of water and walk to a point a few feet north of the equator and show that it is slowly spinning clockwise. Then they take a second pail a few feet south of the equator and show it spinning in the other direction. No one noticed that while walking they rotated their body in the desired direction, and the friction with the side of the bucket caused the water to spin. Ten feet from the equator, the Coriolis Force is negligible because the earth's surface is almost parallel to its axis. But even at our latitudes it doesn't exert enough influence on one gallon of water to create the tremendous spin you see in a toilet. If it were that powerful, imagine what it would do to the oceans! It works at much larger scales. For example, it pulls railroad trains to the right in our hemisphere and to the left in the Antipodes. On dual track lines where all the traffic on each track always moves in the same direction, maintenance workers report that the wear on the right-hand rail is always greater than the other. (I think I got that right, excuse my geometry.)
Can you give reference? That is very strange to me, based on one person (me) observational results. When constipated, a hard turd with obvious "assembly of balls" structure, the turd floats and when soft and smooth with no obvious structure, it never floats.
To strengthen the hint I gave earlier (about limits on accurate depth perception) as to why there appears to be a fan of sun rays, despite sunlight being nearly parallel (only 0.5 degree wide sun) note those parts of the fan that appear to be the most divergent strike the ground near to observer (or even behind observer) and most remote part of fan rays are more parallel. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note illusion: Sun seems to be just above the clouds. Instead of 93 million miles away.
Yes, and notice I pointed out that the anticrepuscular rays behave in the same way - 'insert comments about vanishing points and great circles'.
How big is the stool? Is it........ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! a little stool, or Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! a big stool
Types of human stools: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That sausage one looks painful.
When you start talking about the float you are talking plumber language . There is a developed language centered around the float . First time I heard it I had no idea what the Float was. I thought they were talking about the float inside the water storage tank. Nope, it was the turds . How many flushes depends on the float . How big the hole in the trap is dependent on the type of float you have . Crack Me up. The conversation started when a customer was whining about his toilet plugging up . Low flow toilets will do that . You have to flush then several times to get the turds down
The only one that floats is type two on the Bristol Turd chart. (constipated) Type two is probably made out of type 1 (very constipated). The round ploppies are bound together with trapped air inside.
What I'm wondering...who came up with a poop chart, and why??? I can understand looking for occult blood in the stool versus obvious blood... But a chart to tell the dimension and texture of turds? It seems a bit...um...anal-retentive, if you ask me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bullet diarrhea??? The're pellets but they sort of come flying out? Wouldn't a better term for that be "buttshot?" Whaddaya call a vegetarian with the trots? A salad shooter!
O.K. there was a Doctor , can't remember his name . He said in order to stay healthy you gots to shit a 1to 2 ft. turd every day. So you know gullible Me . Sense I believed it I started shitting 1 and a half ft. turds every day . i don't think I ever managed a 2 ft. close , but not 2 ft. Well my report after 30 years of following the good doctors prescription ? I feel pretty good physically speaking. No worse than when I was a kid . Course I felt like shit most of that time. I didn't shit 2 ft. turds then either
