If you are trapped in ancient time, what would you take?

Bandicoot wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


Let's say, through the act of god, or whatever, that you've been
transported back through time for a few thousand years. Would
you've preferred that you have a digital camera? Or a film camera?

There are reasons that technological breakthroughs come when
they do; supporting technology must also be possible.

What would you do with any film you exposed? Did you also
backpack your chemicals? How would you *view* your pics?
Did you also pack in your papers? How about a darkroom?
With digital, how do you view the pics?

Even just getting *water* will be a problem; there's a reason
everyone drank beer & wine: the water was really bad.

I seriously doubt that film, if unprocessed would last to today,
*if* it were discoverd in some dig.


Best bet would be to stick it in a slow moving glacier.


A Compact flash card? It's
plastic; plastic lasts a long time, but not *that* long.



Some years back there was a debate about how to label high level radioactive
waste in ways that would appropriately warn people "Do not dig here or you
will die!" and would last the necessary 20,000 years. Language is not too
tricky: a skull and cross-bones suggests death to any human regardless of
cutural context - the problem is the material. Most things that really last
are also intrinsically valuable or useful. Gold - nah, people would
actively dig it up. Plastics wouldn't last long enough. Even glass makes
excellent flaked cutting tools, and who is to say that in 20 millenia man
won't be back to the stone age.

In the end someone had the sense to ask archaeologists, and the concensus
answer was pottery. Lasts easily for that length of time, and is not very
intrinsically useful: break it and there are no sharp edges, it can't really
be shaped in any worthwhile way. Make it rounded, so you can't build with
it. Bury enough at the site that they have no rarity value and that anyone
digging there will run into them, but not so many that they are worth
exploiting as a raw material (to ballast a boat, say, or to grind up to make
grog tempered earthenware.) I always thought this was a fascinating
exercise.

I'm not sure at all if this can apply to all radioactive
materials, but one method is to encapsulate the radioactive
material in very small quantities into small glass beads. This
keeps the material seperated enough that fission will not occur
naturally regardless of the quantity at any given spot, and also
allows for the wide dispertion of the material (say underground
in stable strata or on the ocean floor) without any harm to the
environment (this last bit about the ocean is questionable, to be
sure). Would a subduction fault be a good place for the disposal
of these beads ... suck them down into the mantle where they can
decay over time?

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Matt Clara wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

Sabineellen wrote:


For example, if i went back to the early days of cinema i'd take a movie

like

the first matrix movie and show it to an early filmmaker, like someone

from

1932 when they were excited with their talkies. It'd totally captivate

him, i

think. I'll tell him that's how the future is. The LOTR triology, played

as if

they were one movie, would be another option.

By doing that you would kill the initiative that in proper
evolution and creativity brought us to the point where films like
the Matrix could be made. Not that there was much point to the
stupid movie.



The first one was brilliant, and had a great point, about free-will, about
the constructs of life and how they blind us to a bigger picture, and about
each of our role(s) in becoming whole and complete human beings.

I'll agree with you on the second and third movies, however!

There was a first movie?


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:54:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:48:10 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:21:52 -0400, "Spectre"
wrote:

M1A1 Abrams, lots of Fuel and AMMO!!!

Strictly as a mental exercise, I would consider that terminal
overkill.
One ot two thousand years ago, there were no practical targets worthy
of that kind of firepower.
IMO, much better would be something along the line of an APC; much
more interior room (gotta put that fuel somewhre, as well as the photo
equipment), able to be operated by one person, an M-60 on the
ring/pintle is more than enough to intimidate any group of people of
the time period, and the APC will protect you as well as the M1A1 will
from whatever the locals can throw at you.

How about a couple of lighters and some engineering books?

Lighters might be an awe-inspiring thing!
Engineering books - well, I was an Army engineer, and the books would
have been useless back then. Of course, they dealt with things like
building airfields. :-)

I'm thinking that engineering books in general would leave you pretty
frustrated by requiring things you just couldn't get, including the
manpower.
I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.

If *I* were to go back in time, I'd be very sure I could get back.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.


Watermill,windmill,still for water purefaction. More modern farming
methods. You don't bring 2004 tech with you. You bring 1504 tech with you.

Nick

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
Big Bill wrote:

I'm also thinking that going back in time and thinking you can alter
things in a major way just won't work, except if you just used
violence. The technology available would be so lacking compared to
what we have now that just about any project you cared to undertake
would be lacking tools or other items that just didn't exist, and
couldn't be fabricated. And even if all that was needed was manpower,
how would you get the locals to volunteer, when you couldn't talk to
them?
Even altering things in a minor way would be hard, because you
couldn't communicate the need, or concept.


Watermill,windmill,still for water purefaction. More modern farming
methods. You don't bring 2004 tech with you. You bring 1504 tech with you.

Nick

Absolutely: what you want at any given time is the thing they would have
invented anyway not that much (relatively) later: so it is achievable, but
still a great step forward. What that is depends on what time you are at -
the secret of iron smelting would be pretty good in the late bronze age...


Peter

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]



Some years back there was a debate about how to label high level
radioactive
waste in ways that would appropriately warn people "Do not dig here or
you
will die!" and would last the necessary 20,000 years. Language is not
too
tricky: a skull and cross-bones suggests death to any human regardless
of
cutural context - the problem is the material. Most things that really
last
are also intrinsically valuable or useful. Gold - nah, people would
actively dig it up. Plastics wouldn't last long enough. Even glass
makes
excellent flaked cutting tools, and who is to say that in 20 millenia
man
won't be back to the stone age.

In the end someone had the sense to ask archaeologists, and the
concensus
answer was pottery. Lasts easily for that length of time, and is not
very
intrinsically useful: break it and there are no sharp edges, it can't
really
be shaped in any worthwhile way. Make it rounded, so you can't build
with
it. Bury enough at the site that they have no rarity value and that
anyone
digging there will run into them, but not so many that they are worth
exploiting as a raw material (to ballast a boat, say, or to grind up to
make
grog tempered earthenware.) I always thought this was a fascinating
exercise.

I'm not sure at all if this can apply to all radioactive
materials, but one method is to encapsulate the radioactive
material in very small quantities into small glass beads. This
keeps the material seperated enough that fission will not occur
naturally regardless of the quantity at any given spot, and also
allows for the wide dispertion of the material (say underground
in stable strata or on the ocean floor) without any harm to the
environment (this last bit about the ocean is questionable, to be
sure). Would a subduction fault be a good place for the disposal
of these beads ... suck them down into the mantle where they can
decay over time?


The trouble with the beads is making sure no one finds them pretty and makes
them into jewellery. Remember Marie Curie and teh necklace she wore? Of
course they are only practical for low volume / high level waste (which is
just where they would be dangerous as trinkets). Ocean floor disposal deals
with that, but like you I wonder about its environmental impact.

The subduction zone idea ocurred to me as well - don't know if it has been
seriously considered but it does seem to be the ideal answer in so many
ways.



Peter

paul wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:32:57 +0000, MarkH wrote:


wrote in :


Me, I think I'll take a DSLR that takes AA battery and a few GB of
compact flash, and a solar AA battery charger, and a GPS that writes
the tracklog to compact flash and virtually unlimited waypoint
storage, that also takes AA batteries

When you try to use the GPS you would introduce the word "DOH!" to the
ancient civilization.


When I read the OP, I had the best laugh for this day. thanks!


GPS: I wonder how he would build and launch the satellites?

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:32:57 +0000, MarkH wrote:

wrote in :

Me, I think I'll take a DSLR that takes AA battery and a few GB of
compact flash, and a solar AA battery charger, and a GPS that writes
the tracklog to compact flash and virtually unlimited waypoint
storage, that also takes AA batteries

When you try to use the GPS you would introduce the word "DOH!" to the
ancient civilization.

When I read the OP, I had the best laugh for this day. thanks!

How about an ancient Polaroid....

wrote:
Let's say, through the act of god, or whatever, that you've been
transported back through time for a few thousand years. Would you've
preferred that you have a digital camera? Or a film camera?

If you just happen to have a digital camera, say a Canon digital rebel
(or D Mark II, or Nikon D2x, whatever) with a fully charged battery,
and say a 1GB compact flash (heck, say a 10gb cf). How would you use
it? It's unlikely that you'll be able to charge the battery once it's
gone. If you will never make it back to our time, do you think the
compact flash will retain its data for a few thousand years? Under
the assumption that it might retain the data for a while, how would
you shoot? Are you gonna shoot raw? JPG, what compression level? What
do you think is more worthwhile to archeologists, 1000 medium grade
pictures, or 500 higher grade pictures? Or 200 raw pictures?

On the other hand, if you happen to have say a film camera, with a few
roll of film, say 10-20, what would you do? For the sake of argument
I'll assume the film camera also takes battery, but those batteries
might last a bit longer. However, there's no place to buy additional
battery or develop the film, so it's also unlikely that it will last a
few thousand years for us to see anyway....

If we change the scenario a bit, let's say you get 'rescued' after 3
years, but you don't know that, but you are under the assumption that
you will be rescued after some time, how would you use your camera to
document this once in a lifetime never before possible encounter to
the world? If you have your pick of equipment, what would it be?
Whatever you pick, it has to fit in a backpack.

Me, I think I'll take a DSLR that takes AA battery and a few GB of
compact flash, and a solar AA battery charger, and a GPS that writes
the tracklog to compact flash and virtually unlimited waypoint
storage, that also takes AA batteries

Or, I could use a fully mechanical film camera and some bulk films.

Raymond