Feeling better.
Had to make some sacrifices to my schedule, but I got everything in. Almost all of it on time too. Phew. Glad to be back on my feet and anti-anxiety drugs, as the lack thereof just had me FUBAR for nearly a week there...anyway, my workload isn't getting any lighter. Astronomy problems, spanish vocabulary/compositions/video-comprehension, history readings and...
A 10-15pg literature review on prehistoric glue usage as a "preview" to my big experiment this semester: what glue is stronger with what substances?
1. Hide glue (protein gunk)
2. Pine Resin (boiled sap)
3. Asphalt (from tar pits)
Applied to:
1. Bone & bone
2. Bone & rock
3. Bone & wood
4. Rock & wood
5. Rock & rock
6. Wood & wood
I gotta standardize everything, from amount of adhesive applied to what size area, make sample cuts of the materials with the same weight and then find some way to hang them vertically with epoxy and hooks after the glues harden. Then I'm probably gonna use a system of hooks, lines and weights simultaneously to keep the load even. Gotta do it in a room with known temp, humidity, air pressure, elevation, etc. Then I measure how long the materials can hold up to a specific amount of weight.
People have tried things like this experiment before, but only in applied demos - ie, making essentially identical prehistoric tool replicas, but with different adhesives, then subjecting them to working stresses normal of this time period. I'm trying to bring it to the level of fairly basic physics by making the conditions of the experiment as controlled and replicable as possible. The idea is, if we can get ideas about how long it takes for particular artifact parts to break and need repair/replacement, we might be able to make more reasonable guesses about site occupation length, etc. Not to mention settle some arguments between scholars about what natural glues are best...
Any constructive criticisms from physicists, biochemists, archeologists, engineers? How does one officially test the resilience of an adhesive?
A 10-15pg literature review on prehistoric glue usage as a "preview" to my big experiment this semester: what glue is stronger with what substances?
1. Hide glue (protein gunk)
2. Pine Resin (boiled sap)
3. Asphalt (from tar pits)
Applied to:
1. Bone & bone
2. Bone & rock
3. Bone & wood
4. Rock & wood
5. Rock & rock
6. Wood & wood
I gotta standardize everything, from amount of adhesive applied to what size area, make sample cuts of the materials with the same weight and then find some way to hang them vertically with epoxy and hooks after the glues harden. Then I'm probably gonna use a system of hooks, lines and weights simultaneously to keep the load even. Gotta do it in a room with known temp, humidity, air pressure, elevation, etc. Then I measure how long the materials can hold up to a specific amount of weight.
People have tried things like this experiment before, but only in applied demos - ie, making essentially identical prehistoric tool replicas, but with different adhesives, then subjecting them to working stresses normal of this time period. I'm trying to bring it to the level of fairly basic physics by making the conditions of the experiment as controlled and replicable as possible. The idea is, if we can get ideas about how long it takes for particular artifact parts to break and need repair/replacement, we might be able to make more reasonable guesses about site occupation length, etc. Not to mention settle some arguments between scholars about what natural glues are best...
Any constructive criticisms from physicists, biochemists, archeologists, engineers? How does one officially test the resilience of an adhesive?