Are any of the following relevant to why the fish was useful:
Texture?
Density?
Buoyancy?
Appearance?
Biodegradability?
Reactivity with some other substance?
Size?
Friction properties?
reply to Aspidistra:
Are any of the following relevant to why the fish was useful:
Texture? No
Density? No
Buoyancy? No
Appearance? Yes
Biodegradability? Yes
Reactivity with some other substance? No
Size? No
Friction properties? No
Is the work in some aspect of the transport industry?
Equipment maintenance?
reply toAspidistra
Is the work in some aspect of the transport industry?
Equipment maintenance?
No to all
If Bob and all of his co-workers had been without a sense of smell, would the rotting fish still be useful?
If all relevant humans in the situation had been without a sense of smell, would the rotting fish still be useful?
Was the usefulness of the odor in serving as a warning for something?
(don’t think anyone has asked this yet) Is this related to the odorants they add to natural gas so that humans can detect a leak?
reply to Chronos:
If Bob and all of his co-workers had been without a sense of smell, would the rotting fish still be useful? Yes
If all relevant humans in the situation had been without a sense of smell, would the rotting fish still be useful? Yes
Was the usefulness of the odor in serving as a warning for something? No. As noted earlier, the odor of the fish did not play a part in their usefulness.
(don’t think anyone has asked this yet) Is this related to the odorants they add to natural gas so that humans can detect a leak? No
Is the relevant aspect of the fish’s appearance its shininess? Ability to be seen in the dark?
reply to Aspidistra:
Is the relevant aspect of the fish’s appearance its shininess? Ability to be seen in the dark?
YES!!!
OK, I’m not sure how close I am here. They had to work in the dark or low light conditions, and they used the rotting fish to mark things, making it easier to see what they were doing?
Getting pretty warm, Aspidistra! Where are such conditions found? Where might rotting fish be the only acceptable source for light?
Did they work in caves? Or mines?
When you call them “fish” you mean “jellyfish”, right? bioluminescent jellyfish?
Did they work in caves? Or mines?
You got it.
Sometimes the only safe source for light is dead fish.
Aside: now they’re harvesting the bioluminescent chemicals to make longer lasting, eco-friendly, and rechargeable glowsticks:
That was a satisfying, reasonable conclusion. Thanks!
I’m surprised that would result in any amount of usable light, but I guess when you are in absolute cave darkness, it doesn’t take much.
Missed opportunity here by me. Bob and his friends technically work on land, but not high in the air, so where could they be? …maybe underground.
It’s unusual that I learn something when a lateral thinking puzzle is resolved. Well done.
Agreed, an excellent puzzle!
How much fish was required?
reply to Peter_Morris:
How much fish was required?I
+++++
Good question. Most everything I find reports about how fish were used for light in mines and how weird that is, but further details are scant.