What is it? LXXVII

Nope. But it does have something to do with balls. LS

That's what you think.

The answer is that if this phrase ever referred to anything specific, it's no longer known for sure.

Larry Green answers:

This is as good an explanation as any -- simple hyperbole.

Lloyd now comments:

Lloyd needs to read these references:

Nope, it has a quite definite etymology, but a rather exotic one.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in = message news:ZljTe.11046$p snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com... |=20 | "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in = message=20 | news:iijTe.14326$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.tampabay.rr.com... | >

| > The stacks did become slack during extreme heat. The brass monkey = became=20 | > looser. Only when it tightened excessively did the balls begin to = roll=20 | > off. | >

| > Keep in mind that a triangular pyramid stack of spheres is stable to =

+-60=20 | > degrees of roll. That's a heavy sea. | >

|=20 | From the rather small niche of black powder historians, the story = comes this | way: |=20 | Anyone who physically handled cannon balls or powder was known as a = "ball | monkey" or "powder monkey". The term "powder monkey" is still used = today. | "Ball monkey" seems to have been lost. |=20 | On board most armed ships of the British fleet were triangular brass = racks - | low bars of brass forged into an equilateral triangle - mounted to the | decks, into which to stack cannon balls in the familiar pyramid = fashion. | This, to ready the balls for quick access. |=20 | Although the "brass monkeys" were only an inch or two high, the stacks = made | within them were quite stable -- until the temperature dropped very, = very | cold. At that point, due to different coefficients of expansion = between | brass and iron, the balls came tumbling off their racks. |=20 | Thus, "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey". Of = course, the | vulgar connotations came quite soon after. |=20 | LLoyd |=20 |=20 |=20 |=20 |=20

Further to all the above, take a look at this:

--=20 PDQ

The story I've heard is that it refers (in some way I could never figure) to cannonballs and powder monkeys on Naval ships.

I don't believe this though ... it has a certain aura of implausibility to it, and just *feels* like a back-formation. I've certainly never seen convinving evidence of it.

Lloyd Sponenburgh:

Mark Brader:

Lloyd Sponenburgh:

Go on, then. Prove it.

From the rather small niche of black powder historians, the story comes this way:

Anyone who physically handled cannon balls or powder was known as a "ball monkey" or "powder monkey". The term "powder monkey" is still used today. "Ball monkey" seems to have been lost.

On board most armed ships of the British fleet were triangular brass racks - low bars of brass forged into an equilateral triangle - mounted to the decks, into which to stack cannon balls in the familiar pyramid fashion. This, to ready the balls for quick access.

Although the "brass monkeys" were only an inch or two high, the stacks made within them were quite stable -- until the temperature dropped very, very cold. At that point, due to different coefficients of expansion between brass and iron, the balls came tumbling off their racks.

Thus, "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey". Of course, the vulgar connotations came quite soon after.

LLoyd

That one is pure bull s**te. It claimed that the racks the pyramids of cannonballs were stacked on were made of brass and called "brass monkeys". The story goes that differential thermal contraction in cold weather would be enough to make the balls fall off them. No mention of why they wouldn't fall off in hot weather from the motions of a rolling ship. Hah!

Jeff

The stacks did become slack during extreme heat. The brass monkey became looser. Only when it tightened excessively did the balls begin to roll off.

Keep in mind that a triangular pyramid stack of spheres is stable to +-60 degrees of roll. That's a heavy sea.

LLoyd

From the rather small niche of black powder historians, the story comes this way:

Anyone who physically handled cannon balls or powder was known as a "ball monkey" or "powder monkey". The term "powder monkey" is still used today. "Ball monkey" seems to have been lost.

On board most armed ships of the British fleet were triangular brass racks - low bars of brass forged into an equilateral triangle - mounted to the decks, into which to stack cannon balls in the familiar pyramid fashion. This, to ready the balls for quick access.

Although the "brass monkeys" were only an inch or two high, the stacks made within them were quite stable -- until the temperature dropped very, very cold. At that point, due to different coefficients of expansion between brass and iron, the balls came tumbling off their racks.

Thus, "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey". Of course, the vulgar connotations came quite soon after.

LLoyd

And where is this etymology traced from? If you can find me a single contemporary citation, I'll believe you, but until then, I still say "back formation"

Lloyd Sponenburgh:

I said *prove* it. I have already posted cites refuting this answer.

LLoyd,

The thermal coeficients of expansion are:

Brass: 11*10^-6 in/in/deg F

Iron: 7*10^-6 in/in/deg F

The differential is 4*10^-6 in/in/deg F

Thus, a pile of cannonballs and a rack say 4 feet on a side dropping in temperature from say 70 F to -20 F would have an overall differential length change of

4 * 12 * 4e-6 * 90 = 0.017"

Now LLoyd, please tell the group what you think that rack must have looked like, and just how seventeen thou of change in a four foot long dimension made the balls fall off it.

I have learned that the only person who is a bigger fool than one who is wrong and can't see it.....is that person who continues to debate him.

So, I hereby declare you correct and resign from any further discussion of cannonballs and brass racks with you.

Relish your victory, LLoyd.

Jeff

...

...

Must have been those tight tolerances... :)

How much movement would a pile of "one deep" have? :-)

Cannon shot was not stored in piles, but in "shot garlands" which were planks with a row of holes.

And their names are.....?

HINT: The earliest known reference to "brass monkey" was in 1857, and it had nothing to do with cannons. The phrase was "freeze the tail of a brass monkey."

p.s. Mark gave you references to look at, which you ignored.

...

I think that was Bubba and Billy Bob who told him that over a Blue Ribbon the other night... :)

I was afraid that this was where this was leading. :-)

If you want support, try this URL:

Snopes makes a career out of investigating urban legends, determining the truth or falsehood of each one, and has set up an excellent website covering them. This is the sub-page dealing with this particular one.

One facet which he does not cover is the actual difference in the thermal expansion rates for brass and cast iron.

First off -- bronze would be more likely at sea than brass, but I'll list both:

18.50e-6/deg C Brass, ordinary yellow 21.16e-6/deg C Admiralty bronze 11.20e-6/deg C Cast Iron, gray

Now -- let's make some assumptions about the size of the supposed "brass monkey", and the range of temperatures covered by a ship from tropics to arctic sailing conditions:

1) Low temperature is perhaps on the order of -50F. Below that, the sea would tend to freeze over, even short term. 2) High temperature is perhaps on the order of 120F.

For a range of 170F, or 94.44 C. (Let's call it 100 C for convenience.

3) Let's say that the "brass monkey" was 24" maximum dimension (and the stack of cannonballs would have to be somewhat smaller, but let's call it identical for convenience.) 4) So -- over that range of temperatures: the brass would expand 100 x 18.50e-6 x 24 = 0.037" the bronze would expand 100 x 21.16e-6 x 24 = 0.051" the CI would expand 100 x 11.20e-6 x 24 = 0.027"

or a total of 0.024" difference in size -- about 1/40th of an inch, one turn of your micrometer thimble, which is hardly likely to be enough to nudge any of the balls out of their pockets.

Enjoy, DoN.