A likely story...

[empip]

Cannon Balls
It was necessary to keep a good supply of cannon balls near the cannon on old war ships.
But how to prevent them from rolling about the deck was the problem. The
best storage method devised was to stack them as a square based pyramid, with one ball on top, resting on four, resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon.
There was only one problem -- how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding/rolling from under the others.
The solution was a metal plate with 16 round indentations, called a monkey.
But if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it.

The solution to the rusting problem was to make Brass Monkeys. Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster
than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannon balls would come right off the monkey.
Thus, it was quite literally, cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey... Wasn't it?

 

[GasMan1965]

Awesome

 

[ellal]

The Royal Navy records that, on their ships at least, cannon-balls were stored in planks with circular holes cut into them - not stacked in pyramids. These planks were known as 'shot garlands', not monkeys, and they date back to at least 1769, when they were first referred to in print.

The coefficient of expansion of brass is 0.000019; that of iron is 0.000012. If the base of the stack were one metre long the drop in temperature needed to make the 'monkey' shrink relative to the balls by just one millimetre, would be around 100 degrees Celsius. Such a small shrinkage wouldn't have had the slightest effect. In any case in weather like that the sailors would probably have better things to think about than coining new phrases.

 

[empip]

An idiomaticaly 'likely story !" it was then !

 

[empip]

 

[mlb3c]

Gifted adults need time for inner life experiences, and to understand themselves. Because it takes quiet time to clarify thoughts and feelings, gifted adults need contemplation, solitude and daydreaming

 

[tim west]

The Royal Navy records that, on their ships at least, cannon-balls were stored in planks with circular holes cut into them - not stacked in pyramids. These planks were known as 'shot garlands', not monkeys, and they date back to at least 1769, when they were first referred to in print.

The coefficient of expansion of brass is 0.000019; that of iron is 0.000012. If the base of the stack were one metre long the drop in temperature needed to make the 'monkey' shrink relative to the balls by just one millimetre, would be around 100 degrees Celsius. Such a small shrinkage wouldn't have had the slightest effect. In any case in weather like that the sailors would probably have better things to think about than coining new phrases.

perhaps pip should have posted on april the first?

 

[ellal]

perhaps pip should have posted on april the first?

Or maybe just refrain from posting on that day?....

 

[Softus]

The coefficient of expansion of brass is 0.000019; that of iron is 0.000012. If the base of the stack were one metre long the drop in temperature needed to make the 'monkey' shrink relative to the balls by just one millimetre, would be around 100 degrees Celsius. Such a small shrinkage wouldn't have had the slightest effect.

According to my arithmetic, that conclusion is utter b*llocks.

 

[2scoops0406]

Right oh, pull the other one it got bells on it.

 

[ellal]

According to my arithmetic, that conclusion is utter ****.

you havn't shown your workings...

and looking down to judge a 'small shrinkage' doesn't count...

 

[Trazor]

The coefficient of expansion of brass is 0.000019; that of iron is 0.000012. If the base of the stack were one metre long the drop in temperature needed to make the 'monkey' shrink relative to the balls by just one millimetre, would be around 100 degrees Celsius. Such a small shrinkage wouldn't have had the slightest effect.

According to my arithmetic, that conclusion is utter ****.

Using the figures ellal gave, the relative difference in the coefficient of expansion, is 0.000007

Multiply this by 1000 m/m then by 100 degrees gives you 0.7 m/m relative movement.

Using my book, which gives coefficients of expansion in degrees fahrenheit, the figure works out at 0.74 m/m

Not quite 1.0 m/m, but hardly utter ****.

 

[Softus]

Using the figures ellal gave, the relative difference in the coefficient of expansion, is 0.000007

Why are you using those figures? They relate to linear expansion/contraction, and take no account of the shape of the balls.

Moreover, brass and cast iron have different heat capacities, and so won't cool at the same rate.

This is a good example of what happens when uneducated people start spouting figures and attempting calculations that they have no experience of carrying out.

 

[ellal]

This is a good example of what happens when uneducated people start spouting figures and attempting calculations that they have no experience of carrying out.

You mean uneducated as in coming to such a scientific conclusion as 'utter ****?....

Still waiting to see your calculations by the way...

 

[Trazor]

Using the figures ellal gave, the relative difference in the coefficient of expansion, is 0.000007

Why are you using those figures? They relate to linear expansion/contraction, and take no account of the shape of the balls.

You berated his arithmetic only, why are you introducing other factors.?

Moreover, brass and cast iron have different heat capacities, and so won't cool at the same rate.

So what, they still get to their new positions. Pointless observation.

This is a good example of what happens when uneducated people start spouting figures and attempting calculations that they have no experience of carrying out.

And you, obviously, have had experience of stacking cannonballs on a brass monkey.....

Softus, your snide remarks show you have no grace about you whatsoever.