crosswind [they/them]

The heat is all being dumped into the living space either way, so you aren’t losing anything from the metal. It takes away from how much heat will be available in the earthen part after the stove is turned off, but it still warms the room. Plus I imagine it’s nice to have some heat immediately instead of having to start the fire hours before you actually want it.

You could adjust the design if you wanted to change the ratio of fast heat and slow heat, but you would always need to have some part with a high thermal conductivity.

The goal is to have the fire drive a high airflow, both to give itself oxygen, and to pass the exhaust through a long path of heat absorbing dirt. The metal drum does this by passing the hot exhaust up through its center, then rapidly cooling it as it falls back down along the metal surface. The difference in density drives the airflow. The drum needs a high thermal conductivity to be able to maintain this temperature and density difference, and this is also the primary way the heat is transferred to the living area. The earthen part gathers up the remaining heat to increase efficiency and retain heat for when the stove is off, but most of the heating is done immediately through the metal.

There was one where the rock even came with a note telling them to write something nice on the rock and give it to another nurse.

“I’m supposed to appreciate the nurses? Ugh, that sounds awful, just make the nurses appreciate each other”

Getting in to the fine details of it is important for researchers or doctors who specifically work with the tongue, but the issue that we’re talking about here is how this was commonly taught as absolute fact to young children with no nuance and seemingly for no reason other than it being widely believed.

If anyone is specifically claiming that the tongue is completely uniform in taste reception then they’re it taking too far, sure. But generally when I see this brought up, the focus is on questioning the process of how some facts make it in to what schools teach as “common knowledge” even when they are both wrong and unimportant to daily life and general education.

When a teacher tells a 6-7 year old that flavors can only be tasted on certain parts of your tongue, the problem isn’t that they failed to call it a “spatial component to our experience of gustatory stimulus”. At that age, teachers have to strip out most nuance from any lesson, and the goal is to find a way to explain things that is true enough while still being understandable to young children.

So why, if stripping out the nuance makes it basically wrong, did teachers keep teaching it for a century? Even if it were true, it’s not really important information for most people. Necessarily even, because if it were important to daily life, it would be a lot easier to notice it’s mostly wrong.
I don’t know, and I don’t think there’s an exact reason. I had teachers tell us about this, then seem to realize they needed a reason for it to matter and try to turn it in to a lesson about scientific inquiry. They told us to go home and try putting flavors on the ‘wrong’ parts of the tongue and notice how we couldn’t taste anything. I tried it once, and it didn’t work, and it was never brought up again.

Feel free to educate people about the mechanics of our sense of taste, but I think this is a fine example of myths making it in to what’s taught in schools.